THE    NULLIFICATION    CONTROVERSY 
IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OP  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Bgent0 

THE  BAKER  &  TAYLOR  COMPANY 

NEW  VORK 

THE  CUNNINGHAM,  CURTISS  &  WELCH  COMPANY 

LOS  ANQELKS 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON  AND  EDINBURGH 

THE  MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA 

TOKYO,  OSAKA,  KYOTO 

THE  MISSION  BOOK  COMPANY 

SHANGHAI 

KARL  W.  HIERSEMANN 


The 

Nullification  Controversy 
in  South  Carolina 


By 

CHAUNCEY  SAMUEL  BOUCHER,  PH.D. 

Assistant  Professor  of  American  History 
in  Washington  University 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


, 

i\     * 


COPYRIGHT  1916  BY 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO 

All  Rights  Reserved 


Published  June  1916 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  o!  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.S.A. 


TO 

MY  FATHER  AND  MOTHER 


i  f-i  O 


PREFACE 

To  relate  the  story  of  the  nullification  con 
troversy  in  South  Carolina  as  it  is  found  in  the 
writings  of  the  men  who  were  participants  in  it,  is 
the  object  of  this  monograph.  For  six  years  the 
conflict  was  bitterly  waged  and  missed  being  civil 
war  by  a  narrow  margin.  So  much  attention  has 
been  given  to  speculations  on  the  theory  of 
nullification  from  the  standpoint  of  political  sci 
ence,  that  the  history  of  the  party  contest  has  been 
neglected;  and  even  from  the  theoretical  view 
point  a  detailed  study  of  the  views  of  the  con 
temporaneous  supporters  and  opponents  of  the 
doctrine  has  been  neglected.  The  effort  has  been 
made  in  this  treatise  to  delineate  the  various  shades 
of  party  beliefs  at  all  stages  of  the  controversy.  J 

In  the  search  for  materials  the  writer  for 
tunately  gained  access  to  files  of  several  of  the 
leading  newspapers  of  the  Union  and  the  State 
Rights  parties,  representing  both  the  interior  and 
the  coastal  sections;  several  valuable  pamphlet 
collections;  and  the  unpublished  correspondence 
and  papers  of  prominent  leaders  of  the  opposing 


viii  Preface 

factions,  and  of  two  men  most  prominently  con 
nected  with  the  administration.  For  the  courtesy 
and  kind  assistance  rendered  by  the  custodians 
and  owners  of  these  valuable  materials,  the  author 
desires  to  express  his  appreciation.  He  is  espe 
cially  indebted  to  Professor  Claude  H.  Van  Tyne 
and  Professor  Ulrich  B."  Phillips,  both  of  the 
University  of  Michigan,  for  encouragement  and 
counsel  most  generously  given,  and  to  Professor 
William  E.  Dodd,  of  the  University  of  Chicago, 
who  volunteered  to  read  sections  of  the  proof. 

In  order  to  facilitate  reading,  the  original  punc 
tuation  and  capitalization  of  many  quotations 
have  been  changed  somewhat  to  make  them  con 
form  more  to  present  usage. 

C.  S.  BOUCHER 

ST.  Louis,  Mo. 
March  i,  1916 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  CONFLICT  (1824-29)       .  i 

II.  NULLIFICATION  ADVOCATED  AND  DENOUNCED 

(1830)  46 

III.  THE  FIRST  TEST  OF  STRENGTH  (1830-31)      .  88 

IV.  A  YEAR  OF  CAMPAIGNING  (1831)    ....  119 

V.  THE  NULLIFIERS  CAPTURE  THE  LEGISLATURE 

(1832)  164 

VI.  NULLIFICATION  ADOPTED  (1832)     .     .     .     .  208 

VII.  JACKSON  AND  NULLIFICATION  (1832-33)   .     .  228 

VIII.  NULLIFICATION  SUSPENDED  (1833)      .     .     .  262 

IX.  THE  COMPROMISE  TARIFF  AND  THE  FORCE 

BILL  (1833)    .     .  286 

X.  THE  TEST  OATH  (1833-35) 316 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 367 


MAPS 

PAGE 

I.  SOUTH  CAROLINA  DISTRICTS  AND  PARISHES 

IN  1830 facing  iii 

II.  SENATE  VOTE  ON  STATE  CONVENTION,  1830  .  108 

III.  HOUSE  VOTE  ON  STATE  CONVENTION,  1830  .  109 

IV.  JACKSON  AND  ANTI- JACKSON  CAUCUSES,  1831  161 
V.  POPULAR  VOTE  ON  STATE  CONVENTION,  1832  203 

VI.  LEGISLATURE   OF    1832,   FOR  AND   AGAINST 

CONVENTION 204 

VII.  HOUSE  VOTE  ON  GOVERNOR'S  COUNTER- 
PROCLAMATION,  AND  UNION  VOTE  IN  CON 
VENTION,  1832 244 

VIII.  HOUSE  VOTE  ON  THE  TEST  OATH,  1832    .     .  245 

IX.  HOUSE  VOTE  ON  THE  TEST  OATH,  1833    .     .  320 

X.  POPULAR  VOTE  FOR  LEGISLATURE,  1834   .     .  354 

XI.  LEGISLATURE  OF  1834 355 


XI 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  CONFLICT  (1824-29) 

the  session  of  the  South  Carolina  legislature 
which  convened  in  November  of  1825,  Judge 
William  Smith  introduced  a  set  of  anti-bank,  anti- 
internal  improvement,  and  anti-tariff  resolutions. 
They  were  adopted/  Before  this  session  there  had 
appeared  in  South  Carolina  scattered  evidences  of 
opposition  to  nationalism,  but  this  episode  may  be 
said  to  mark  the  beginning  of  the  formidable  anti- 
nationalist  movement  in  the  state.1  South  Caro 
lina  was  not  unique  in  this  respect;  other  south 
ern  states  were  showing  signs  of  a  similar  move 
ment.  In  Virginia,  Thomas  Ritchie  had  been 
preaching  strict  construction  and  had  thereby 
forfeited  some  of  his  popularity  in  the  western 
counties,  while  William  B.  Giles,  more  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  eastern  counties,  was  even  more 
outspoken  in  his  anti-nationalistic  doctrine.2 

1  For  a  review  of  the  position  of  the  state  up  to  this  time,  see 
Houston,  Nullification  in  South  Carolina,  chaps,  i-iv. 

2  See  Charles  H.  Ambler,  Thomas  Ritchie  and  Sectionalism  in 
Virginia  from  1776  to  1861. 

i 


2       Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

^From  the  time  of  the  South  Carolina  resolu 
tions  of  1825  against  "governmental  usurpations" 
until  the  South  Carolina  Exposition  of  1828,  the 
people  of  the  state  became  more  and  more  out 
raged  by  the  "usurpations,"  chief  among  which 
was  the  tariff,  until  most  of  the  people  of  the 
state  considered  not  only  warrantable,  but  highly 
proper,  an  opposition  of  a  decidedly  strong  char 
acter.  But  until  the  fall  of  1828  few  dared  to 
think,  or  to  admit  thinking,  of  a  direct  conflict 
of  state  and  federal  authorities.  Even  then,  when 
the  proposition  which  might  bring  about  such  a 
conflict  came,  it  had  to  come  in  the  guise  of  a 
peaceable  measure,  if  not  honestly  so. 

After  the  passage  of  the  tariff  bill  of  1824  numer 
ous  anti-tariff  meetings  were  held  in  various  parts 
of  the  state.  The  tariff  was  denounced  as  a  sys 
tem  of  robbery  and  plunder,  destructive  to  the 
southern  states.  Meetings  adopted  resolutions 
which  pledged  the  participants  to  purchase  no 
northern  manufactures  and  no  Kentucky  horses; 
men  delighted  to  talk  of  sacrifices  for  the  sake  of 
principle.  George  McDuffie  was  reported  to  have 
pulled  off  his  broadcloth  coat  and  to  have  given  it 
to  his  servant,  saying  that  it  was  fit  only  for  the 
livery  of  a  slave.  Judge  Daniel  E.  Huger  is  said 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  3 

to  have  refused  to  eat  Irish  potatoes  because  they 
were  from  the  North,  and  General  Waddy  Thomp 
son  was  reported  as  having  declared  that  he  would 
live  on  snowbirds  and  make  the  judicial  circuit 
on  foot  rather  than  eat  Kentucky  pork  or  ride  a 
Kentucky  horse.  But  in  spite  of  all  the  talk  about 
the  injustice  and  oppression  of  the  tariff,  few 
questioned  its  constitutionality.  And  as  for  dis 
union  as  a  measure  of  resistance,  many  of  the 
people  who  later  supported  it  were  now  horrified 
at  the  expression  of  Dr.  Thomas  Cooper,  presi 
dent  of  South  Carolina  College,  that  it  was  time 
to  "calculate  the  value"  of  the  federal  Union. 

During  1827  there  appeared  in  the  Charleston 
Mercury  a  series  of  articles,  later  published  in 
pamphlet  form,  written  by  Robert  J.  Turnbull 
under  the  name  of  "Brutus."  The  writer  en 
deavored  to  show  that  Congress  and  the  Supreme 
Court  had  made  the  Constitution  "A  DEAD 
LETTER"  which  might  "mean  ANYTHING  or  .  .  .  . 
NOTHING."1  The  broad-cons tructionists  were  se 
verely  arraigned,  and  McDuffie  was  particularly 
shown  the  error  of  his  ways  on  this  point.  Suffi 
cient  opposition  was  aroused  by  the  time  the 

1  The  Crisis:  Thirty-three  Essays  on  the  Usurpations  of  the  Federal 
Government.  By  Brutus,  Charleston,  1827.  Eleven  essays  were 
added  to  the  series  as  originally  published  in  the  Charleston  Mercury. 


4       Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

legislature  met  in  November  for  that  body  to  feel 
justified  in  making  an  official  declaration  for  the 
state.  Both  houses  approved  a  set  of  resolutions 
which  asserted  the  right  of  the  people  or  the  legis 
lature  of  any  state  "to  every  extent  not  limited, 
to  remonstrate  against  violations  of  the  funda 
mental  compact  ....  between  the  people  of  the 
different  states  with  each  other  as  separate 
independent  sovereignties/7  All  tariff  acts,  the 
object  of  which  was  not  the  raising  of  revenue 
nor  the  regulation  of  foreign  commerce  but  the 
promotion  of  domestic  manufactures,  were  pro 
nounced  violations  of  the  Constitution,  "in  its 
spirit,"  which  ought  to  be  repealed.  They  also 
denied  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to 
construct  internal  improvements.1 

By  this  time  John  C.  Calhoun  saw  clearly  the 
danger  to  which  the  power  of  Congress  to  pass 
protective  tariffs  might  lead;  this  power  might 
"make  one  section  tributary  to  another,  and  be 

'And,  having  become  somewhat  exercised  over  the  recent 
activities  of  the  American  Colonization  Society,  they  resolved  that, 
since  it  was  not  an  object  of  national  interest,  Congress  had  no 
power  in  any  way  to  patronize  or  direct  appropriations  for  its  benefit. 
The  South  Carolina  senators  in  Congress  were  "instructed"  and  the 
representatives  "requested"  to  act  in  accordance  with  these  views 
(Report  and  Resolutions  of  the  Special  Committee  of  the  Senate  on  the 
Subject  of  State  Rights.  Pamphlet) . 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  5 

used  by  the  administration  and  artful  and  corrupt 
politicians  to  buy  up  partisans  and  retain  power." 
A  meeting  of  the  manufacturing  interests  at 
Harrisburg  to  devise  measures  to  pass  a  tariff 
bill  then  pending  set  the  dangerous  example  of— 

separate  representation  and  association  of  great  geo 
graphical  interests  to  promote  their  prosperity  at  the 
expense  of  other  interests  ....  which  of  all  measures 
that  can  be  conceived  is  calculated  to  give  the  greatest 
opportunity  to  art  and  corruption  and  to  make  two  of  one 

nation It  must  lead  to  defeat  or  oppression  or 

resistance,  or  the  correction  of  what  perhaps  is  a  great 
defect  in  our  system;  that  the  separate  geographical 
interests  are  not  sufficiently  guarded.1 

Calhoun  even  then  was  probably  contemplating 
some  such  remedy  as  he  framed  for  presentation 
to  the  state  legislature  at  the  end  of  the  next 
year.  He  soon  came  to  feel  confident  that  the 
tariff  was  one  of  the  greatest  instruments  of 
southern  impoverishment,  and  that  if  persisted 
in  it  must  reduce  the  South  to  poverty  or  compel 
an  entire  change  of  industry.2  By  the  middle  of 
1828  he  was  convinced  that  the  South  was  so 

1  Calhoun  Correspondence,  American  Historical  Association  Re- 
Port,  1899,  Vol.  II:  Calhoun  to  J.  E.  Calhoun,  August  26,  1827. 

3  Calhoun  Correspondence:  Calhoun  to  J.  E.  Calhoun,  May  4, 
1828. 


6       Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

alienated  because  of  the  tariff  system  that  if  a 
speedy  and  effective  check  upon  this  system  were 
not  soon  applied  a  shock  might  shortly  be  ex 
pected.1 

In  Congress  the  South  Carolina  delegation  did 
much  to  present  the  southern  reasons  for  opposing 
the  passage  of  the  tariff  act  of  1828.  At  one 
stage  of  the  debate  William  Drayton  moved  to 
amend  the  title  of  the  bill  so  as  to  read,  "An  act 
to  increase  the  duties  on  certain  imports,  for  the 
purpose  of  increasing  the  profits  of  certain  manu 
facturers."  He  hoped  thus  to  make  possible  an" 
appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
to  try  the  constitutionality  of  the  system,  which 
could  not  be  done  if  the  title  remained  unchanged.2 

In  spite  of  southern  opposition  the  tariff  of 
"abominations"  was  passed.  But  this  did  not 
settle  the  matter,  for,  as  the  Mercury  announced, 
the  "passage  of  this  pernicious  measure"  did  not 
quell  the  feeling  with  which  the  people  of  South 
Carolina  remonstrated  against  it,  and  with  which 
it  was  opposed  by  her  delegates  in  Congress.3  The 

1  Calhoun  Correspondence:  Calhoun  to  James  Monroe,  July  10, 
1828. 

2  Charleston  Mercury,  April  30,  1828.     This  paper  will  be  referred 
to  hereafter  as  the  Mercury. 

3  Mercury,  May  28,  1828. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  7 

people  saw  remonstrances  proving  futile  and 
began  to  think  of  the  next  necessary  step.  This, 
then,  became  the  great  question  of  the  hour :  What 
next  ?  Various  views  were  immediately  set  forth; 
while  one  of  the  South  Carolina  representatives 
at  Washington  said  a  complete  union  of  the  whole 
South  alone  could  save  South  Carolina  and  the 
South,  other  writers  in  the  press  of  the  state 
looked  to  the  state  legislature  to  decide  on  the 
proper  course  of  resistance.  At  this  juncture  the 
Mercury,  which  later  became  an  ardent  nullifica 
tion  sheet,  took  a  very  sane  and  moderate  posi 
tion;  it  merely  advocated  caution  and  careful 
consideration  before  any  step  should  be  taken.1 

1  Mercury,  May  20,  1828.  The  editor  wrote  that  the  citizens  of 
South  Carolina  felt  with  grief  that  the  Constitution  had  been  violated 
and  that  the  great  object  of  the  confederacy  had  been  shamefully 
perverted;  that  their  remonstrances  had  been  disregarded,  their 
rights  denied,  and  the  solemn  protests  of  their  delegates  laughed 
to  scorn;  that  they  had  been  reduced  to  a  condition  almost  tanta 
mount  to  colonial  vassalage,  and  that  they  were  never  regarded 
except  for  the  purpose  of  discovering  in  what  way  they  could  be 
rendered  serviceable  to  the  interests  of  others;  that  the  burdens 
under  which  they  then  labored  were  but  the  probable  forerunners  of 
others  still  more  oppressive,  and  that  the  future  held  for  them  nothing 
but  wretchedness  and  embarrassment;  that  the  great  sources  of  their 
wealth  were  about  to  be  dried  up,  and  that  the  dignity  of  their 
state  and  their  prosperity  as  a  people  were  on  the  eve  of  leaving 
them  forever.  But,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  people  felt  all  this  so 
deeply,  and  in  spite  of  the  impression  nearly  every  reader  of  this 


8       Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

By  the  middle  of  July  communications  denoun 
cing  the  tariff  were  numerous  in  the  southern 
papers,  and  especially  in  South  Carolina  many 
men  wrote  for  publication.  These  communi 
cated  articles  were  signed  with  various  fantastic 
names.  The  nom  de  plume  was  sometimes  the 
name  of  some  famous  historic  character  of  the 
state,  nation,  or  world,  some  doctrine  or  theory, 
or  was  indicative  of  some  class  which  the  writer 
thought  he  represented.  A  man  occasionally 
wrote  under  more  than  one  name.  Some  of  these 
anonymous  writers  wrote  long  series  of  articles 
and  became  widely  known  literary  characters, 
though  their  real  identity  remained  long  or  per 
manently  unknown  to  the  public.  There  were 

editorial  must  have  been  forming  before  he  finished  it — that  the 
editor  was  showing  that  there  was  surely  but  one  course  left  for  the 
South  honorably  to  pursue — the  editor  concluded  with  a  plea  for 
careful  consideration  of  the  question  on  the  part  of  every  citizen 
before  he  formed  his  opinion  as  to  what  the  policy  of  the  state 
should  be.  "Whether,"  he  said,  "the  spirit  of  just  dissatisfaction 
which  now  prevails  should  be  allayed  or  extended;  whether,  as  we 
have  borne  before,  we  shall  magnanimously  bear  again,  or  by  a 
convulsive  effort  shake  off  the  burden  which  afflicts  us;  whether 
by  any  possible  course  of  conduct,  we  can  avert  the  misfortunes  which 
threaten  us,  without  incurring  the  hazard  of  others  still  more  dread 
ful  and  appalling — are  questions  which  will  naturally  arise  to  the 
mind  of  eVery  man,  and  which  the  people  of  this  state  may  possibly 
be  called  upon  to  determine." 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  9 

hundreds  of  these  writers  who  produced  merely 
one  or  a  few  articles  of  no  merit,  who  wrote  simply 
to  see  something  of  their  own  in  print;  others, 
however,  had  marked  ability  which  was  recog 
nized  by  the  people  of  the  state  and  country. 

"Leonidas,"  one  of  these  anonymous  writers,  in 
July,  1828,  noted  a  rising  spirit  of  discontent 
against  the  tariff  bill  "now  in  operation  by  the 
usurped  powers  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,"  and  asserted  that  those  who  were  con 
fident  in  the  belief  that  this  spirit  would  exhaust 
itself  or  be  smothered  by  opposition  and  intimida 
tion,  considered  too  lightly  the  genius  of  the 
southern  states  and  the  principles  for  the  sake  of 
which  the  awakened  people  were  gathering  up 
their  energies  to  meet  the  alarming  crisis.1 

As  regards  the  attitude  of  the  North  to  the  out 
cry  of  the  South,  it  seemed  to  one  South  Carolina 
editor  impossible  for  anyone  who  did  not  read  the 
northern  papers  to  form  the  slightest  conception 
of  the  general  tone  of  contempt,  affected  pity,  and 
ridicule  which  they  invariably  employed  toward 
the  southern  states,  and  especially  of  late  toward 
South  Carolina.2 

1  Mercury,  July  14,  1828. 

2  Mercury,  July  n,  1828. 


io     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

In  the  various  districts  of  the  state1  the  first 
Monday  of  each  month  was  designated  as  "sale 
day."  On  that  day,  when  the  sheriff's  sale 
was  held  at  the  county  seat,  throngs  of  farmers 
and  planters  journeyed  to  their  respective  court 
house  towns  to  attend  the  sales,  do  their  trading, 
meet  and  converse  with  neighbors  of  the  district, 
and  discuss  questions  of  politics.  Meetings  were 
announced  for  this  day,  or  were  spontaneously 
convened,  whenever  any  subject  of  importance  was 
being  agitated.  The  people  always  knew  that  if 
any  subject  became  important  during  any  month, 
there  was  likely  to  be  a  meeting  on  the  next  sale 
day  to  consider  it;  prominent  leaders  were  occa 
sionally  present  to  address  the  people,  and  at 
times  open  debates  were  held.  If  there  was 
intense  party  feeling  and  sharp  division,  the 
parties  would  meet  separately. 
,>  On  the  sale  days  of  August  and  succeeding 
months  in  1828,  meetings  were  held  at  various 
places  over  the  state  to  express  again  the  opposi 
tion  of  the  people  to  the  tariff,  and  to  discuss 
possible  plans  of  resistance.  The  tariff  was  now 
attracting  so  much  attention  that  in  many  in- 

1  The  coastal  political  divisions,  smaller  than  those  of  the  interior, 
were  called  parishes,  while  those  of  the  interior  were  called  districts. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  n 

stances  the  people  would  not  wait  for  sale  day, 
but  held  special  meetings;  and  in  some  cases  the 
local  districts  of  a  congressional  district  met 
together  in  convention.  Some  of  these  anti- 
tariff  meetings  attracted  special  attention  as  being 
"the  largest  and  most  respectable  meetings  ever 
held  in  the  district."1  The  Abbeville  meeting,  in 
Calhoun's  district,  was  anticipated  as  one  which, 
perhaps  more  distinctly  than  any  other  yet  held, 
would  embody  the  feeling  of  the  interior  and 
announce  the  course  likely  to  be  pursued  by  that 
section.  Expectations  were  not  disappointed. 
It  was  estimated  that  5,000  were  present,  and 
resolutions  were  passed  which  strongly  denounced 
the  tariff.  Although  the  protestants  looked  to 
state  sovereignty  for  relief,  they  intrusted  the 
subject  to  the  legislature.  They  expressed  a  will 
ingness  to  join  in  the  non-intercourse  plan, 
a  contemplated  southern  agreement  to  use  no 
northern  manufactures,  but  they  had  no  faith  in 
it  as  a  permanent  policy.2 

1  Mercury,  August  7,  1828,  report  of  anti-tariff  meeting  at  Barn- 
well;  August  9,  Orangeburg;  August  19,  Newberry;  September  9, 
Union,  Lexington,  York,  Greenville;  October  3,  Abbeville;  October  7, 
anti-tariff  convention  of  delegates  from  York,  Chester,  Lancaster, 
and  Fairneld  at  Chester;  October  14,  Pendleton;  October  15,  St. 
James',  Goosecreek;  October  22,  Darlington. 

3  Mercury,  October  3,  1828. 


12     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

In  reviewing  and  indorsing  the  work  of  these 
various  meetings,  the  editor  of  the  Mercury  drew 
a  picture  which  was  surely  an  exaggeration.  He 
contrasted  the  situation  of  South  Carolina  then 
with  her  condition  a  few  years  earlier,  and  con 
tended  that  by  the  tariff  South  Carolina  had 
been  transformed  from  a  garden  to  a  wilderness.1 
For  these  meetings  and  complaints,  however,  the 
participants  were  censured  by  "all  the  presses  in 
the  pay  of  the  administration,  led  on  and  mar 
shalled  by  the  National  Intelligencer."  These 

1  Mercury,  August  23, 1828:  "Many  can  well  remember  the  time 
when  the  sails  of  our  commerce  whitened  every  sea;  when  our 
planters  were  well  remunerated  for  their  labor;  when  improvements 
were  daily  adding  to  the  size  and  beauty  of  our  towns;  when  industry 
of  all  kinds  was  abundantly  employed  and  amply  rewarded;  and 
when  ease  and  contentment  marked  the  circumstances  and  reigned 
in  the  hearts  of  all  classes  of  our  people.  But  that  time  has  passed, 
and,  as  we  fear,  forever. 

"Government  thought  proper  to  interfere  in  our  concerns  and  has 
succeeded  at  last,  by  continued  acts  of  injustice  and  oppression,  in 
blighting  the  hopes  and  ruining  the  prospects  of  our  people.  Com 
merce,  which  once  poured  its  treasures  at  our  feet,  is  now  driven 
from  our  shores.  Agriculture,  which  amply  repaid  the  labor  of  our 
planters,  now  scarcely  affords  them  a  bare  subsistence.  Plantations, 
once  the  abode  of  elegance  and  wealth,  have  been  deserted  and 
abandoned.  Property,  once  immensely  valuable,  has  fallen  to  less 
than  half  its  value.  Industry  no  longer  finds  employment.  Poverty 
and  embarrassment  universally  prevail,  and  nothing  is  to  be  seen  or 
heard,  from  the  seaboard  to  the  mountains,  but  the  signs  of  decay  and 
the  language  of  despair. ' ' 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  13 

presses  held  that  the  attacks  upon  the  tariff 
act  were  mere  pretexts  to  cover  deep  and  traitor 
ous  designs  of  the  leaders  of  the  Jackson  party 
looking  to  the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  with  a 
view  to  the  erection  of  a  separate  empire  for 
Andrew  Jackson  and  themselves.  The  Mercury 
answered,  however,  that  the  question  was  really 
distinct  from  the  presidential  issue  and  that  the 
National  Intelligencer  was  trying  to  make  political 
capital  out  of  it  to  defeat  Jackson.1  The  South 
Carolinians  evidently  regarded  the  tariff  of  1828 
as  of  greater  importance  than  did  many  Virginians, 
who  looked  upon  it  as  simply  an  aid  to  the  "manu 
facture  of  a  President  of  the  United  States."2 

In  view  of  the  accusation  of  the  "administra 
tion  presses"  there  arises  at  once  a  question  as  to 
just  what  modes  of  resistance  were  advocated  at 
this  time.  In  the  first  place,  there  was  as  yet 
no  well-defined,  well-organized  Disunion  or  even 
Nullification  party.  Certain  hints  at  disunion  had 
been  dropped  by  a  few  writers,  and  the  resolutions 
of  some  of  the  local  meetings  had  led  some  of  the 
more  sensitive  patriots  to  believe  that  they  had 
scented  a  secret  movement  which  might  grow 

1  Mercury,  August  23,  1828. 

2  Charles  H.  Ambler,  Thomas  Ritchie,  p.  114. 


14     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

and  lead  to  disunion.  But  these  Union  watch 
dogs,  who  raised  the  preliminary  warning  and 
later  became  leaders  of  the  Union  party,  were 
now  making  much  more  stir  than  was  warranted 
by  anything  the  press  disclosed. 

Throughout  the  year  1828  the  Charleston  Courier 
bristled  with  denunciations  of  anything  and 
everything  that  could  be  interpreted  as  tending 
toward  disunion.  Early  in  the  year  " Hamilton" 
published  a  series  of  twenty-eight  articles  in 
answer  to  TurnbulFs  The  Crisis,  which,  with 
kindred  publications,  " Hamilton"  said,  had  made 
the  term  " disunion"  familiar  to  the  ears  of  the 
people — a  term  which  he  held  should  never  have 
found  its  way  into  the  political  vocabulary,  but 
should  be  forever  regarded  as  of  evil  omen. 
" Hamilton"  denounced  these  essays  as  enkindling 
animosity,  sowing  dissension  between  the  South 
and  the  North,  and  weakening  the  ties  that  bound 
them  together.  He  did  not  refer  to  particular 
expressions,  but  to  the  general  tone  of  the  essays 
and  to  the  inferences  which  they  suggested.  He 
thought  it  impossible  to  rise  from  their  perusal 
without  the  impression  that  the  authors  regarded 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union  as  an  event,  not  only 
probable,  but  hardly  to  be  deprecated.  He  said 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  15 

that  it  would  not  only  be  impossible  ever  to 
bring  the  government  back  to  the  principles 
" Brutus"  (Turnbull)  styled  pure,  but  that  it 
would  not  be  desirable  if  possible,  for  such  a 
government  could  not  last  a  twelvemonth.  Such 
principles  could  not  bind  the  parts  together;  the 
very  interests  and  prejudices  which,  in  the  view 
of  "Brutus,"  forbade  a  closer  union  were  the 
premises  on  which  " Hamilton"  relied  to  demon 
strate  its  necessity.1 

The  Charleston  City  Gazette,  as  early  as  June  19, 
1828,  observed  that  the  "question  of  disunion" 
was  "at  last  seriously  and  openly  submitted  to  the 
consideration  of  the  people  of  South  Carolina," 
and  that  the  people  were  asked,  not  only  to  cal 
culate  the  advantages  of  the  Union,  but  to  resist 
its  laws  and  dissolve  the  political  bonds  which  held 
the  confederacy  together.  The  editor  repeated 
the  usual  story  of  South  Carolina's  wrongs  and 
sufferings  in  the  Union,2  and  added: 

Such  is  the  gloomy  picture  which  is  artfully  drawn  to 
excite  popular  frenzy  to  an  act  of  irretrievable  desperation. 
A  measure  of  the  general  government  (to  say  the  worst 

1  Charleston  Courier,  .February  12,  1828.  This  paper  will  be 
referred  to  hereafter  as  the  Courier.  See  Houston,  Nullification  in 
South  Carolina,  pp.  49-51,  71-73. 

3  Such  as  quoted  from  the  Mercury  in  n.  i,  p.  12. 


1 6     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

of  it)  of  doubtful  policy  is  thus  worked  up  into  the  most 
horrid  phantom  which  can  disturb  the  vision  of  freemen; 
and  over  their  terrified  imagination  a  demoniac  sorcery  is 
thus  exercised  to  lead  them  into  crime  and  to  tempt  them 
to  their  destruction.  For  it  would  be  a  crime,  unpardon 
able  before  God  and  man  [to]  violate  and  tear  down  the 
only  true  altar  which  has  ever  been  erected  to  civil  and 
religious  liberty;  and  a  desolation  wider  and  more  de 
structive  than  has  ever  darkened  the  fortunes  of  the 
human  race  would  mark  and  signalize  its  accomplishment.1 

The  editor  admitted  that  the  state  had  suffered 
somewhat  along  with  the  general  agricultural 
interests  of  the  South,  but  he  believed  that  the 
evil  would  right  itself. 

Many  men  now  wrote  or  spoke  against  dis 
union.  On  July  4,  at  Columbia,  Alfred  Bynum 
delivered  an  address  which  a  correspondent  said 
did  much  to  stop  seditious  expressions  in  that 
part  of  the  state.  He  reported  that  never  before 
had  he  seen  the  tide  of  party  feeling  so  suddenly 
arrested  in  its  course  as  by  this  speech.  This  he 
insisted  was  no  exaggeration,  for  at  the  several 
barbecues  not  a  toast  was  permitted  which  had 

1  Charleston  City  Gazette,  June  19,  1828.  This  paper  was  a  daily. 
The  Charleston  Carolina  Gazette  was  a  weekly  edition  published  by  the 
same  editors  for  country  circulation.  The  Charleston  City  Gazette 
will  be  referred  to  hereafter  as  the  Gazette,  while  the  Charleston 
Carolina  Gazette  will  be  referred  to  as  the  Carolina  Gazette. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  17 

the  least  savor  of  disaffection  toward  the  govern 
ment.  The  efforts  of  both  William  C.  Preston  and 
William  Harper  to  answer  Bynum  were  pro 
nounced  failures.1 

"One  of  the  People,"  dating  his  letter  from 
Pineville,  now  started  a  series  of  articles  to  show 
the  dangers  of  disunion.  He  said  that  Colleton, 
Richland,  and  Abbeville,  the  districts  which  had 
been  most  clamorous  on  the  subject  of  state  rights 
and  the  federal  government's  usurpations,  had  lost 
sight  of  the  original  purpose  of  the  State  Rights 
party  and  had  come  to  think  too  much  of  imme 
diate  and  unconditional  separation  from  the 
Union;  they  had  perverted  the  state  rights 
doctrines  and  misled  the  people  simply  for  their 
own  selfish  ends.2  Many  other  writers  kept  the 
Courier  supplied  with  anti-disunion  copy.3  Some 
of  the  anti-tariff  meetings  during  the  summer  had 
features  which  attracted  special  attention.  For 
example,  at  the  Columbia  meeting  Professor 
Robert  Henry,  of  South  Carolina  College,  moved 

1  Courier,  July  9,  1828. 

2  Courier,  July  12,  1828. 

3  In  the  Courier,  on  July  22,  1828,  "A  Citizen  of  the  U.S."  started 
a  series  of  articles.     On  July  25,  "A  Southron"  appeared.     Soon 
"Lowndes"  followed,  and  then  many  others  in  August.     On  August 
28  "Union"  began  a  series. 


1 8     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

to  strike  out  of  the  address  those  parts  professing 
love  for  the  Union.  For  this  he  was  severely 
criticized  by  many,  some  of  whom  said  that  they 
would  cry  shame  on  the  legislature  if  he  were 
retained  in  the  college.  He  had  his  defenders, 
however,  in  such  papers  as  the  Cher  aw  Radical* 

A  letter  by  David  R.  Williams,  former  governor 
of  the  state,  to  a  committee  of  citizens  of  York 
district,  attracted  attention.  He  pictured  the 
people  of  Kershaw  district  as  extremely  indignant, 
and  averred  that  ninety-nine  out  of  every  hundred 
of  the  people  of  his  congressional  district  believed 
the  tariff  unjust  to  the  South  and  unconstitu 
tional.  He  could  not  say  as  yet  what  proportion 
would  oppose  the  operation  of  the  law;  but  he 
feared  that  a  number  of  young  spirits  would  will 
ingly  risk  their  lives  for  a  military  career  "  if  only  for 
the  fun  of  it,"  though  the  discreet  and  sober- 
minded  would  countenance  only  such  opposition  as 
he  outlined.  He  was  decidedly  against  any 
thought  of  forcible  resistance,  for  he  preferred 
to  suffer  as  long  as  burdens  were  tolerable  rather 
than  encounter  evils  more  terrible.  He  had  as 
yet  heard  of  no  project  which  really  assured 
relief.  He  could  not  see  that  the  legislature  could 

1  Courier  y  August  15,  1828;   Carolina  Gazette,  September  12. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  19 

better  things  by  taking  affairs  into  its  own  hands. 
He  preferred  associations  for  non-consumption 
of  eastern  and  western  articles,  and  favored 
no  project  that  might  tend  to  dismember  the 
Union.1  Such  were  the  views  of  the  conserva 
tives. 

This  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  sentiment 
of  a  "  large  and  respectable  meeting  of  the  inhab 
itants  of  Colleton  district"  at  the  courthouse 
in  Walterboro,  on  June  i2.2  The  official  ad 
dresses  of  the  meeting  to  the  people  of  the  state 
and  to  the  governor  spoke  strongly  for  resistance 
and  asked  that  the  governor  convene  the  legisla 
ture  at  once  to  consider  the  situation,  or  call  a 
convention  to  do  so.  The  editor  of  the  Mercury 
commended  this  as  showing  proper  disdain  for 
anything  like  a  mean  evasion  of  the  law;  the  people 
of  Colleton,  he  was  glad  to  see,  would  not  form 
associations  to  counteract  the  tariff  law,  nor  agree 
ments  not  to  use  northern  manufactures,  nor 
would  they  resort  to  any  step  whatever  which, 
while  it  would  circumvent  the  law,  would  be 
tantamount  to  an  acknowledgment  of  the  right 

1  Courier,  August  27,  1828. 

2  This  section  of  the  state,  the  southeast  corner,  seemed  consist 
ently  to  take  an  advanced  position.     The  Bluff  ton  movement  of 
1844  was  another  instance. 


2o     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

of  Congress  to  enact  it  and  thus  tend  to  fix  the 
oppression  irrevocably  upon  the  country.  He 
praised  them  for  clearly  denying  the  constitution 
ality  of  the  act  and  recommending  distinctly  such 
"open  resistance"  as  became  "a  Sovereign  and 
Independent  State."1 

But  the  Walterboro  meeting  was  proceeding 
too  fast  for  the  rest  of  the  party,  or  at  least  faster 
than  the  other  opponents  of  the  tariff  thought 
politic.  While  the  Mercury  itself  later  admitted 
this,  the  Columbia  Telescope,  which  was  generally 
understood  to  be  the  principal  organ  of  the  less 
conservative  anti-tariff  men  of  the  interior,  at 
once  disapproved  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
meeting  and  declared  itself  as  preferring  non- 
consumption  as  a  more  advisable  mode  of  defeat 
ing  the  operation  of  the  system.2  The  Winy  aw 
Intelligencer,  although  firmly  opposed  to  the  tariff, 
also  regretted  the  proceedings  as  premature,  and 
the  Richmond  Enquirer,  taking  the  same  ground, 
called  upon  the  citizens  of  Colleton  to  pause  and 
avoid  such  a  program  as  their  enemies  were  most 
anxious  they  should  adopt. 

As  yet  the  doctrine  of  nullification  was  not 
generally  indorsed  nor  even  discussed;  other 

1  Mercury,  June  18,  1828.  3  Mercury,  July  4,  1828. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  21 

methods  were  proposed.  These  were  non- 
consumption,  the  establishment  of  state  excises, 
and  the  establishment  of  southern  manufactures. 
Each  had  a  few  strong  advocates,1  but  many 
objections  were  raised.  The  Mercury  regarded 
the  non-consumption  plan  as  equivalent  to  sub 
mission,  and  the  establishment  of  southern 
manufactures  as  absolutely  hopeless  and  only 
calculated  to  benefit  a  few  individuals  without 
effecting  anything  like  general  relief.  George 
McDuffie  was  one  of  those  who  suggested  these 
measures,  which  were  to  be  made  effective  by  a 
tax  on  all  northern  manufactured  goods  and 
Kentucky  live  stock  after  they  had  been  incor 
porated  in  the  property  of  the  state;  thus  the 
people  were  to  be  encouraged  to  raise  all  their 
own  horses,  mules,  and  cows,  and  to  manufacture 
their  own  wearing  apparel.2  Some  confidently  be 
lieved  that  a  successful  beginning  in  manufactur 
ing  had  already  been  made  in  South  Carolina. 
"Homespun"  left  at  the  Courier  office,  for  the 
inspection  of  planters,  a  sample  of  cotton  osna- 
burgs  for  negro  clothing,  manufactured  by  the 
South  Carolina  Manufacturing  Company  at  So 
ciety  Hill  in  Darlington  district.  This  company 

1  Courier,  August  19,  1828.  2  Mercury,  July  4,  18,  1828. 


22     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

also  manufactured  other  sorts  of  cloth  for  winter 
or  summer  clothes  for  negroes,  and  cotton  bagging, 
"at  prices  most  essentially  anti-tariff/'  said 
"Homespun."  The  writer  endeavored  to  show 
how  South  Carolina  had  at  her  command  every 
means  for  avoiding  extravagant  duties.1  Other 
writers  recommended  the  manufacture  of  cotton 
seed  oil  and  the  culture  of  the  vine  to  help  lighten 
the  burden  of  the  tariff.  During  this  year  and 
the  next,  noticeable  attention  was  directed  to 
agricultural  improvements,  and  announcement 
was  made  of  an  agricultural  paper  which  was  to 
begin  publication  on  January  i,  i83o.2 

While  some  writers  were  in  sympathy  with  all 
suggestions  and  efforts  which  might  enable  the 
planters  to  bear  up  against  the  tariff,  they  con 
tended  that  the  iniquity  of  protectionism  itself 
must  never  for  a  moment  be  forgotten.  They 
believed  that  substitutes  and  experiments  might 
produce  temporary  alleviation,  but  that  the  South 
could  never  be  permanently  prosperous  until  the 
restrictive  policy  was  destroyed.  Many  WTiters 
deprecated  the  plans  of  non-consumption  and 

1  Courier,  January  26,  1829. 

2  Mercury,  September  23,  October,  1829;  Courier,  November  10. 
The  Southern  Planter  and  Practical  Agriculturist  was  to  be  a  monthly 
of  44  or  48  pages. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  23 

home  manufactures  as  impossible  of  enforcement. 
While  the  Edgefield  meeting  of  July  26  pledged 
its  participants  not  to  use  northern  manufactures 
or  live  stock,  this  expedient  was  viewed  as  having 
only  slight  and  temporary  value.  Though  faith 
was  expressed  in  the  state  legislature,  a  committee 
of  five  was  appointed  to  correspond  with  similar 
committees  in  South  Carolina  and  other  southern 
states.  Thus  a  step  was  early  taken  to  promote 
union  of  policy  in  the  South.1 

For  most  of  the  disunion  talk,  so  generally 
decried,  the  "Mercury  Junto"  was  blamed,  and 
the  men  connected  with  the  paper  were  classed 
together  as  a  dangerous  group.  Those  who 
formed  this  junto  were  said  to  be  some  "  apostate 
republicans  " ;  ambitious  office-holders  and  hungry 
expectants  of  office,  deluded  or  wicked  men,  who 
would  sacrifice  on  the  altar  of  interest  their 
dearest  rights;  "blind  partisans  of  Calhoun, 
McDuffie,  Hamilton,  etc.";  and  " disorganizing 
ultra-federalists,"  who  were  "never  so  happy  as 
when  successful  in  fomenting  dissensions  among 
the  different  sections  of  the  United  States."2 
Strategem  as  well  as  disunion  purpose  was 

1  Mercury,  August  4,  September  23,  1828. 

2  Gazette,  July  26,  1828. 


24     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

attributed  to  the  junto.  Though  not  one  of  the 
"big  leaders"  had  declared  openly  for  separation, 
these  cunning  old  politicians,  it  was  said,  had 
allowed  a  few  of  the  very  young  men  to  speak 
for  it;  these  young  men  were  sent  forth  from  the 
citadel  of  sedition,  like  little  dogs,  whose  barking, 
if  it  aroused  the  citizens,  should  be  the  signal 
to  the  wary  soldiers  within  to  raise  the  Union 
standard  and  avert  the  impending  attack.  When 
public  opinion  was  seen  to  be  strongly  Unionist, 
the  Mercury,  the  organ  of  the  Disunion  party, 
protested  against  being  called  the  advocate  of 
disunion.  "Thus,"  said  the  Gazette,  " although 
we  have  stripped  from  the  Mercury  party  the  mask 
of  virtue  with  which  it  would  have  concealed 
its  treachery,  we  are  yet  unable  to  name  the  per 
sons  who  would  dismember  the  Union.  The  light 
of  day  shines  not  upon  them;  poor,  cowardly 
assassins,  they  stab  only  in  the  dark."1 

Such  accusations  were  based  purely  upon  sus 
picion.  The  accusers  had  to  admit  that  their 
charges  could  not  be  substantiated  by  positive 
citations.  In  May  the  Mercury  had  advised 
caution  and  careful  consideration  before  action. 
In  June  it  had  approved  the  suggestion  of  the 

1  Gazette,  July  26,  August  i,  1828. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  25 

Walterboro  meeting,  that  the  legislature  or  a 
convention  be  asked  to  take  steps  toward  such 
"open  resistance "  as  became  a  "Sovereign  and 
Independent  State";  but  in  July  it  interpreted 
this  to  be  simply  a  forceful  declaration  that  the 
tariff  act  was  unconstitutional  and  must  be 
repealed;  that  the  rights  of  the  southern  states 
had  been  destroyed  and  must  be  restored;  that 
the  Union  was  "in  danger,  and  must  be  saved.7'1 
Surely  there  was  no  earnest  advocacy  of  disunion 
in  that;  it  merely  suggested  disunion  as  a  possi 
bility  if  the  tariff  system  were  not  altered,  and 
the  suggestion  was  offered  more  for  moral  effect 
than  with  any  immediate  purpose. 

As  yet  there  were  no  clearly  defined  party  lines 
throughout  the  state,  as  there  came  to  be  later 
when  the  State  Rights  party  and  the  Union 
party  were  definitely  organized.  At  this  time, 
in  the  summer  and  fall  of  1828,  the  main  body  of 
the  people  were  just  beginning  to  be  aroused 
to  the  point  where  they  were  ready  to  contem 
plate  other  methods  than  resolutions  against  the 
tariff. 

The  hostility  between  the  two  factions  kept 
increasing,  however,  and  the  leaders  of  the 

1  Mercury,  May  29,  June  18,  July  4,  1828. 


26     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

conservatives  were  especially  severe  in  their 
accusations  and  denunciations  of  the  radicals, 
whom  they  styled  Disunionists.  In  Edgefield 
district  the  Disunionists  seem  to  have  boycotted 
the  Edgefield  Hive,  edited  by  Dr.  A.  Landrum. 
This  action  the  Charleston  Gazette  declared  to  be 
simply  typical  of  the  policy  of  coercion  pursued 
by  that  party  in  both  the  upper  and  the  lower 
country,  to  force  into  the  views  of  "the  wild  and 
heated  demagogues  of  the  day"  all  who  would  not 
"throw  up  the  cap  and  hurrah  for  disunion." 
This  editor  continued  his  fight  against  the 
"traitors"  who  worked  in  secret  to  destroy  the 
Union,  and  hoped  that  ere  long  they  would  be 
dragged  forth  and  exposed .  By  the  last  of  August 
he  noticed  that  the  gang  of  professional  office- 
hunters  connected  with  the  junto,  seeing  that  the 
idea  of  disunion  was  not  becoming  popular,  began 
to  talk  more  for  the  Union  side,  in  order  to  get 
elected.  He  favored  putting  the  clique  out  of 
office  and  electing  industrious,  sober-minded 
citizens.1 

Not  only  were  the  majority  of  the  people 
strongly  against  disunion  at  this  time,  but  some 
were  even  pro-tariff  in  sentiment.  A  series  of 

1  Gazette,  August  n,  26,  30,  1828. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  27 

articles  in  the  Courier,  signed  by  "A  Native,"1 
denounced  the  talk  of  disunion  and  expressed 
alarm  at  the  meetings  which  asked  that  the  legis 
lature  or  a  convention  do  something,  for  the 
author  believed  that  revolutionary  purposes  were 
in  contemplation.  He  held  that  a  certain  set  of 
men  was  bent  upon  separation  from  the  Union 
and  was  using  the  tariff  controversy  as  a  cloak. 
Though  he  claimed  not  to  be  a  tariff  man,  he 
showed  himself  a  thoroughgoing  one.  He  tried 
to  show  that  the  South  and  South  Carolina  were 
not  subjected  to  all  the  intolerable  load  of  injury 
and  injustice  which  had  been  urged  as  the  motive 
for  separation.  The  subject  of  the  tariff  had 
unfortunately  become  very  much  involved;  what 
with  pamphlets,  speeches,  memorials,  reports,  and 
resolutions,  the  mass  of  argument  had  become 
so  enormous  that  men  were  taking  their  opinions 
at  second  hand;  they  would  rather  expose  them 
selves  to  error  and  imposition  than  undertake 
the  intolerable  work  of  wading  through  such 
oceans  of  ink.  He  attempted  a  simple  statement 
of  the  case. 

"A  Native"  did  not  deny  the  right  of  revolu 
tion,  but  presented  its  dangers  and  seriousness, 

1  Seventeen  in  all,  beginning  on  June  5  and  ending  on  July  18, 1828. 


28     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

and  held  that  just  cause  for  its  exercise  did  not 
exist.  He  then  proceeded  to  show  the  fallacy  of 
the  contention  that  the  tariff  operated  so  as  to 
levy  on  one  part  of  the  community  a  tribute  to  be 
bestowed  as  a  bounty  on  another.  To  him  the 
idea  of  regarding  it  as  a  tribute  levied  by  a  few, 
the  manufacturers,  upon  the  many,  the  consumers, 
was  absurd,  and  the  calculations  by  which  the 
consumers  of  goods  not  actually  imported  were 
shown  to  be  tributary  to  the  manufacturers  in 
proportion  to  the  amount  of  the  duty  that  would 
be  paid  on  the  goods  if  imported  seemed  to  him 
theoretical  folly  contradicted  by  the  clearest 
practical  proof.  The  tariff  was  not  an  arbitrary, 
uncalled-for  interference  of  the  government,  but 
an  institution  arising  from  a  combination  of  cir 
cumstances  which  could  not  be  well  overlooked 
by  a  vigilant  and  paternal  government  striving  to 
assist  the  laudable  aims  of  one  part  of  the 
community  without  imposing  any  sacrifice  upon 
another.  Neither  would  it  in  its  remote,  any 
more  than  in  its  immediate,  effects  result  in  injus 
tice  or  oppression  to  the  consumers  of  the  South. 
There  were  certain  classes  in  the  North  whom  it 
would  affect  indeed  far  more  than  it  would  the 
Souths  As  for  the  southern  agriculturists,  the 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  29 

writer  endeavored  to  prove  that  to  them  the 
tariff  act  was  a  benefit.  The  effect  of  the  tariff 
upon  prices,  the  writer  held,  was  incapable  of 
calculation,  but  he  contended  that  it  only  steadied 
prices  at  the  outset,  and  invariably  resulted  in  a 
reduction  ultimately,  as  had  been  established  by 
experience  everywhere.  The  aid  of  a  reasonable 
tariff  to  support  manufacturers  in  the  competition 
to  supply  a  pre-occupied  market  was  indispensable, 
he  argued,  and  in  the  end  would  fully  indemnify 
the  consumers,  for  it  contained  in  itself  a  counter 
acting  influence,  which,  by  exciting  competition, 
secured  the  community  against  increase  of  price, 
and  furnished  an  indemnity  by  communicating 
a  value  to  labor  of  every  description.  Beyond 
all  question  the  power  of  Congress  had  been  con 
stitutionally  exercised  in  this  instance. 

This  was  typical  of  a  number  of  pro-tariff 
arguments,1  of  more  or  less  merit,  all  of  which  were 
characterized  by  writers  in  the  Mercury  as  any 
thing  but  convincing.2 

A  planter  near  Augusta,  who  saw  at  least 
one  phase  of  the  situation  clearly,  wrote  that 

1  In  the  Gazette,  on  August  18,  1828,  "Prudence"  started  a  series. 

3  Mercury,  June  n,  1828.  "The  Astonished  Natives"  declared 
that  "A  Native"  had  soon  "got  into  thick  darkness  from  which  no 
light  could  be  seen." 


30     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

he  thought  that  the  noise  about  the  tariff  would 
all  end  in  smoke,  for  the  people  would  soon  learn 
that  they  could  get  their  coarse  clothing  cheaper 
that  year  than  the  year  before.  He  wrote : 

I  have  bought  my  negro  clothing  and  shoes  10  per 
cent  lower  this  than  last  year,  and  60  per  cent  less  than 
when  I  imported  the  former  direct  from  England  a  few 
years  ago;  and  the  fabric  is  at  least  10  per  cent  better  in 
wearing.  And,  besides,  what  has  our  tariff  to  do  with  the 
fall  in  price  of  all  the  cottons  raised  in  other  parts  of  the 
world?  It  is  all  madness  and  folly.  The  whole  secret 
is,  we  raise  too  much  of  it  and  ought  to  turn  our  attention 
to  something  more  promising  and  productive. 

This  was  apparently  the  theory  of  the  Courier 
editor  also.1 

There  were  champions,  not  only  of  the  tariff, 
but  of  federal  internal  improvements  also.  "One 
of  the  People"  said  he  did  not  believe  that  all 
the  people  of  the  state  were  strongly  opposed  to 
internal  improvements  directed  by  the  general 
government,  despite  the  fact  that  the  South 
Carolina  representatives  in  Congress  had  declared 
against  this  function,  for  the  planters  of  the  interior 
sorely  needed  means  of  communication  and  had 
been  shamefully  neglected.2 

1  Courier,  September  30,  1828;  see  also  Houston,  Nullification  in 
South  Carolina,  chap.  iii. 

2  Courier,  June  18,  1828. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  31 

As  already  hinted,  such  disunion  advocacy  as 
was  expressed  attracted  little  attention  in  the 
North,  save  as  it  made  capital  in  the  presidential 
contest.  The  National  Intelligencer  held  that  the 
attempts  in  the  South  to  bring  about  a  separation 
of  the  Union  originated  with,  and  were  promoted 
by,  the  friends  of  General  Jackson;  that  the 
Jackson  party  was  a  dangerous  one,  because 
Jackson's  election  would  result  in  the  destruction  of 
the  confederacy.  The  Mercury  denounced  this  as 
a  mean  artifice  to  help  John  Quincy  Adams,  and, 
after  disavowing  disunion,  gave  Jackson  warm 
praise,  in  sharp  contrast  with  its  bitter  censures 
a  few  years  later. 

If  there  is  a  man  in  the  United  States  whose  whole 
soul  is  devoted  to  his  country,  and  who  would  esteem  no 
sacrifice  too  great  for  the  preservation  of  her  liberty, 

that  man  is  Andrew  Jackson If  any  individual 

can  preserve  the  Union;  if  any  one  man  can  compose 
the  agitated  waves  which  threaten  to  engulf  us,  he  is 
that  man.  To  him  the  people  look  emphatically  as  their 
last,  sole  hope.1 

The  Adams  administration,  however,  was  not 
without  its  friends.  The  Courier  and  the  Gazette 
were  both  Adams  papers.  The  friends  of  the 

1  Mercury,  June  27,  August  6,  1828. 


32     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

administration  in  various  parts  of  the  state  ven 
tured  to  hold  a  few  meetings  during  the  year,  but 
the  fall  elections  showed  that  not  only  Charleston, 
but  the  state  at  large,  was  overwhelmingly  for 
Jackson.  In  Charleston  the  administration  party 
made  a  desperate  fight,  but  while  the  highest 
vote  for  a  Jackson  man  elected  as  representative 
to  the  state  legislature  was  1,510,  and  the  lowest 
number  of  votes  for  a  winning  candidate  was 
1,096,  the  highest  vote  for  an  administration 
candidate  was  706. 

In  denying  that  it  was  a  Disunion  sheet,  the 
Mercury  always  made  the  point  that  it  sought 
merely  to  bring  the  Union  back  to  the  constitu 
tional  basis,  and  that  if  the  Union  were  ever 
broken  the  blame  would  be  on  the  North — with 
those  who  trampled  the  Constitution  under  foot 
and  who,  forgetting  that  the  states  of  the  South 
were  coequal  sovereignties  with  the  others,  seemed 
determined  to  exploit  them  as  colonies  at  their 
own  discretion  and  pleasure.  In  September,  when 
it  was  seen  that  the  state  was  decidedly  against 
disunionism  in  any  phase,  the  Mercury  announced 
that  the  South  did  not  really  think  of  disunion, 
but  that  the  real  issue  was  simply  as  to  how 
the  violations  of  the  Constitution  were  to  be 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  33 

remedied  and  how  Congress  could  be  induced  to 
abandon  forever  the  doctrine  of  implied  powers.1 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  very  few  if  any  of  the  small 
number  of  men  who  did  talk  disunion  actually 
contemplated  a  recourse  to  it.  And  even  those 
few  saw  that  they  must  hide  behind  at  least  a 
pretendedly  peaceable  remedy,  and  one  with 
little  apparent  implication  of  disunion.  Nulli 
fication  would  serve. 

The  doctrine  of  nullification  was  brought  to 
conspicuous  notice  by  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  at 
a  Walterboro  gathering,  on  October  12,  1828. 
"Our  reliance,  then,  is  on  the  Virginia  and  Ken 
tucky  Resolutions  of  '98 — and  upon  these  we 
put  our  citadel  where  no  man  can  harm  it." 
Nullification,  he  said,  might  be  applied  by  the 
state  either  through  its  legislature  or  by  a  con 
vention  of  the  people  in  their  sovereignty,  and 
need  not  result  in  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  unless 
that  was  willed  by  their  opponents.  If  the  tariff 
were  declared  null  and  void  within  South  Carolina, 
one  of  three  courses  would  be  open  to  the  general 
government:  first,  to  submit  to  this  mode  of 
redress,  by  leaving  the  people  of  South  Carolina 
to  themselves,  with  a  hope  that  solitude  would 

1  Mercury,  September  3,  1828. 


34     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

bring  repentance  and  submission;  secondly,  to 
appeal  to  a  convention  of  the  states  and  thereby 
obtain  a  decision  on  the  constitutional  question; 
or,  thirdly,  to  use  direct  coercion  with  the  bayonet. 
As  to  the  first,  consideration  of  the  commercial 
tribute  South  Carolina  was  paying  would  pre 
vent  its  use.  The  third  would  destroy  the  Union 
and  was  but  a  wild  speculation,  unworthy  of 
serious  thought.  The  second  was,  he  believed, 
the  remedy  which  would  be  applied.  If  three- 
fourths  of  the  states  should  decide  for  the  tariff, 
then  South  Carolina,  resting  on  her  sovereignty, 
could  decide  whether  to  join  a  confederacy  in 
which  the  prohibitory  system  was  sanctioned 
by  the  very  Constitution  of  the  Union.  But 
he  confidently  believed  that  the  tariff  would  be 
rejected  and  that  a  purified  Constitution  would 
be  the  result.1 

Many  looked  eagerly  to  the  session  of  the 
state  legislature  to  point  out  the  way  for  the 
state.  These  were  doomed  to  disappointment. 
In  1824  Judge  Samuel  Prioleau,  as  chairman  of  a 
committee  to  which  was  referred  the  part  of 

1  Speech  of  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  at  Walterboro,  on  October  21, 
1828,  at  a  public  dinner  given  to  him  by  his  constituents  of  Colleton 
district  (pamphlet). 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  35 

Governor  John  L.  Wilson's  message  touching 
the  usurpations  of  Congress  in  the  matters  of 
internal  improvements,  protective  tariffs,  and  the 
United  States  Bank,  had  reported  that  the  legis 
lature  had  no  right  to  interfere  with  the  legislation 
of  Congress.  Many  prominent  members  took  this 
view,  but  at  the  next  session  Judge  William  Smith 
brought  forward  resolutions,  which  were  adopted, 
declaring  that  a  state  legislature  had  the  right  to 
watch  over  the  proceedings  of  Congress,  express 
opinions  thereon,  and  remonstrate  against  such 
legislation  as  it  disapproved.  This  it  proceeded  to 
do,  and  the  same  course  was  pursued  in  1 8  2  7 .  This 
was  the  doctrine  of  state  rights  as  then  understood. 
When  the  legislature  met  in  November,  1828, 
the  subject  of  chief  interest  was  of  course  the 
tariff,  and  parties  were  beginning  to  form  with 
regard  to  future  action  by  the  state.  Virtually 
all  were  opposed  to  the  tariff,  but  there  were 
wide  differences  as  to  the  mode  and  measure 
of  redress.  There  were  the  moderates  and  the 
radicals;  Hugh  S.  Legare  was  a  prominent  leader 
of  the  former,  and  Chancellor  William  Harper  of 
the  latter.  During  two  weeks  of  discussion  in 
the  legislature  a  number  of  resolutions  were  offered 
and  all  referred  to  a  committee.  In  the  meantime 


36     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Colonel  William  C.  Preston  asked  John  C.  Cal- 
houn  to  write  a  report  for  adoption  by  the  legis 
lature.  Calhoun  wrote  this  report,  and  it  was 
sent  to  the  committee  and  reported  by  it  to  the 
House  for  adoption.  The  legislature  was  not 
ready  to  adopt  the  report,  which  was  the  very 
embodiment  of  nullification  disguised  by  a  great 
deal  of  metaphysical  ingenuity,  but  it  adopted 
instead  a  set  of  relatively  tame  resolutions,  and 
ordered  the  report  to  be  printed.  These  reso 
lutions  declared  that  the  tariff  acts  were  uncon 
stitutional  and  should  be  resisted,  and  invited  the 
other  states  to  co-operate  with  South  Carolina 
in  resistance.  The  resolutions  were  sent  to  the 
several  southern  governors  to  be  submitted  to 
the  state  legislatures.  Many  erroneously  took 
the  policy  of  the  Exposition  to  be  that  officially 
approved  by  the  legislature.  The  authorship  of 
the  Exposition  was  anonymous;  Calhoun  was  as 
yet  behind  the  scenes,  and  was  not  to  appear 
openly  as  an  actor  in  the  nullification  episode 
until  he  was  later  forced  to  do  so.1 

During  the  next  year,  1829,  the  state  was  much 
less  agitated  over  the  tariff,  because  early  in  the 

1  Mercury,  December   23,   1828;   Gazette,  July    i,    1831;   B.   F. 
Perry,  Reminiscences  and  Speeches. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  37 

year  it  seemed  that  the  South  Carolina  protest 
would  at  last  be  received  in  Washington  with 
proper  attention.  Indeed,  there  appeared  to  be 
much  opposition  to  the  tariff  act  even  in  the 
North.1  The  editors  in  the  state,  even  the  most 
vehement  ones,  must  have  felt  no  little  confidence 
that  Jackson  and  Congress  would  reduce  the  tariff 
at  the  coming  session;  for,  during  the  summer  and 
fall,  up  to  the  time  of  the  opening  of  Congress,  the 
press  was  noticeably  silent  on  the  subject.2  This 
must  not  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  people  of 
the  state,  unanimously  confident,  were  simply 
waiting  patiently  for  Congress  to  meet  and  re 
dress  their  every  grievance.  There  were  quite 
audible  scattered  grumblings.  At  the  Walterboro 
celebration  on  the  Fourth  of  July  the  toasts 
again  reflected  an  ardent  desire  for  resistance; 
one  denounced  the  legislature  of  1828  as  having 
given  a  stone  to  the  people  when  they  were  ask 
ing  for  bread.  The  Columbia  Telescope  did  not 

1  Courier,  February  n,  1829. 

2  Many  men  believed,  as  James  H.  Hammond  said  in  his  July  4 
address  at  Columbia,  that  "the  Powers  that  presided  in  our  day  of 
darkness  are  no  longer  lords  of  the  ascendant.     Another  star  has 
risen  and  there  are  streaks  of  light  already  visible  in  the  horizon 
which  augur  the  dawn  of  a  new  and  bright  day.     The  night  will  pass 
away";  its  memory,  he  said,  would  serve  as  a  warning  against  future 
attempts  at  usurpation  (James  H.  Hammond,  Papers). 


38     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

rest  so  quietly  on  its  oars  as  did  other  papers  of 
the  state,  and  in  its  comments  on  the  Independence 
Day  celebration  took  occasion  to  remark  that  the 
government  since  its  establishment  had  changed 
very  materially  for  the  worse.1 

The  Telescope  now  studiously  answered  the 
northern  papers  which  were  attacking  South 
Carolina  with  charges  of  "  Treason,  Rebellion, 
Disunion,  Blood,  Carnage,  Etc.,"  and  admitted 
with  Thomas  Jefferson  that  even  disunion  was  not 
the  greatest  scourge  which  could  afflict  the  nation, 
and  that  whenever  the  original  terms  and  pur 
poses  of  the  Union  had  been  essentially  and 
permanently  changed  (which  condition,  it  strongly 
hinted  at  various  times,  was  at  hand),  it  could 
no  longer  be  desirable  to  any  sensible,  honest, 
or  patriotic  man.  A  little  later  this  editor  argued 
that  disunion  would  not  be  so  disastrous  to  the 
South  as  pictured  by  some,2  and  accused  the 
Edgefield  Carolinian,  and  the  whole  community 
thereabout,  of  being  too  nationalistic  in  their 

1  Columbia  Telescope,  July  10,  1829.     This  paper  will  be  referred 
to  hereafter  as  the  Telescope. 

2  Pie  declared  that  the  South  could  go  out,  as  far  as  the  results  of 
disunion  were  concerned,  with  security;  but  that  he  was  not  anxious 
for  disunion,  unless  driven  to  it;  that  it  was  to  be  preferred,  however, 
to  further  submission  to  the  tariff  and  internal  improvements — the 
American  system. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  39 

views  and  not  strong  enough  supporters  of  state 
sovereignty  and  state  rights.1 

The  Telescope  thus,  contrary  to  the  prevailing 
attitude  of  the  state  and  that  of  the  Disunion 
party,  advanced  from  a  moderate  anti-tariff 
position  to  an  open  advocacy  of  the  disunion 
doctrine  in  theory,  and  an  announcement  that  it 
would  be  ready  to  follow  that  doctrine  in  practice 
if  matters  were  not  speedily  righted.  While  there 
were  a  few  tilts  in  that  year  over  the  question 

1  Telescope,  September  4,  October  16,  November  6,  20, 1829.  This 
charge  was  called  forth  by  an  article  in  the  Edgefield  Carolinian  calling 
Dr.  Thomas  Cooper  a  "foreigner"  and  dangerous  radical,  and 
saying  that  his  speech  in  July,  1827,  in  which  he  said  that  it  was  time 
for  the  South  to  calculate  the  advantages  of  the  Union,  was  a  senti 
ment  uttered  at  an  improper  time  by  an  improper  person,  and  that  it 
had  been  injurious  to  the  cause  of  the  South.  The  Carolinian  said: 
"It  certainly  enabled  those  enlisted  against  our  rights  to  appeal 
with  great  success  to  the  prejudices  of  the  people  in  favor  of  the 
Union,  before  they  had  been  sufficiently  enlightened  as  to  the 
outrageous  oppression  practiced  upon  them.  It  was  argued  with 
great  adroitness  and  effect  that  the  opposition  to  the  tariff  was  a  mere 
scheme  of  some  of  the  southern  politicians  to  gratify  their  ambition 
in  obtaining  that  power  which  would  be  inaccessible  while  we  main 
tained  our  political  relations  with  the  other  portions  of  the  country. 
We  are  as  well  satisfied  as  we  can  be  of  any  fact  from  observation, 
that  the  friends  of  spirited  resistance  to  the  tariff  have  had  to  en 
counter  no  obstacle  more  embarrassing  than  the  revulsion  of  feeling 
produced  by  the  indiscreet  violence  of  Dr.  Cooper  and  some  of  his 
confederates.  Love  for  the  Union  is  too  deeply  seated  in  the  Ameri 
can  bosom  to  be  lightly  shaken  by  any  reasoning  on  its  pecuniary 
advantages." 


40     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

of  disunion,1  there  was  a  decided  lull  on  the  issue 
throughout  the  state. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  year,  as  the  time 
approached  for  the  assembling  of  the  state  legis 
lature  and  of  Congress,  it  was,  in  view  of  what 
some  expected  from  the  latter,  a  pertinent  ques 
tion  what  action  the  former  should  take.  Early 
in  the  year,  in  its  first  issue,  the  Greenville  Moun 
taineer2  had  thoroughly  indorsed  the  course  of  the 
last  session  of  the  legislature  as  the  only  one  for 
South  Carolina  to  pursue,  for  it  believed  that 
there  was  no  step  between  the  one  already  taken— 
legislative  protest — and  open,  unqualified  resist 
ance.  The  plan  of  non-consumption  of  all  prod 
ucts  which  were  either  grown  or  manufactured  in 
the  tariff  states  was  approved  as  the  only  proper 
mode  of  resistance,  however  feeble  it  might  be. 

As  the  time  approached,  other  suggestions 
were  ventured.  Two  writers  in  a  Columbia 
paper  differed  as  to  what  they  considered  the 
proper  policy.  "Lowndes"  felt,  in  view  of  the 
forbearance  of  the  state  in  the  past,  when  there 

1  Courier,  August  4,  1829,  "A  Carolinian";  October  15,  "Anti- 
Cato";  Gazette,  September  17,  "Union";  August  4,  "Caution." 

3  Greenville  Mountaineer,  January  10,  1829.  This  paper,  soon  to 
prove  itself  a  strong  Union  paper,  will  be  referred  to  hereafter  as  the 
Mountaineer. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  41 

was  not  a  single  ray  of  hope  for  help  from  Congress, 
that  it  would  be  folly  for  the  legislature  to  take 
a  positive  stand  now,  just  at  the  time  when  there 
was  a  prospect,  even  though  a  slight  one,  of  justice. 
He  favored  an  adjourned  meeting  of  the  legislature 
to  be  called  after  Congress  had  acted.  The  com 
ing  session  of  Congress  would  decide  the  ques 
tion  forever;  if  the  decision  went  against  the 
South,  then  the  only  alternatives  would  be  for 
the  legislature  to  declare  a  peaceable  secession  or 
declare  the  unconstitutional  laws  a  nullity  not  to 
be  obeyed. 

The  other  writer,  "State  Rights,"  could  see 
in  such  a  course  nothing  better  than  the  "  wordy 
warfare,"  bordering  upon  the  ridiculous,  which 
the  legislature,  as  "Lowndes"  admitted,  had  kept 
up  for  the  last  five  or  six  years.  He  would 
have  the  legislature  demand  of  Congress  the 
calling  of  a  convention  of  the  states.  "Lowndes'7 
pronounced  this  nothing  short  of  chimerical  for 
if  the  South  was  unable  to  get  a  simple  majority 
of  Congress  for  the  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  laws, 
it  was  more  than  obvious  to  him  that  it  need  never 
think  of  relief  by  means  of  so  complicated  and 
tedious  a  way  as  a  convention,  even  though  that 
was  an  essential  feature  in  the  plan  of  the  author 


42     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina. 

f  &***-,' ~-:7j*-    •-<.*<' 

of  the  Exposition/  The  editor  himself  simply 
remarked  that  whether  the  next  legislature 
would  talk  and  talk  and  deal  in  rhetorical  flour 
ishes,  as  the  last  had  done,  until  the  members 
bewildered  themselves  and  disgusted  their  hearers, 
he  knew  not,  but  he  firmly  believed  that  no 
good  would  be  done.1 

In  this  period  of  waiting  some  predicted  that  if 
Congress  should  persist  in  its  past  course  it  would 
find  that,  even  though  there  were  apparently 
now  a  moderate  and  a  violent  party,  the  line 
between  them  was  either  faint  or  undiscernible  ;2 
others  raised  their  voices  in  warning  against  the 
dangers  of  petty  jealousies,  local  prejudices, 
selfish  interests,  apathy,  timidity,  or  anything 
that  would  cause  division  before  the  enemy.3 
But,  in  spite  of  such  opinions  and  warnings, 
South  Carolina  was  by  no  means  a  unit  even  as  to 
the  doctrine  of  state  rights.  Quite  a  number 
of  men  in  the  state  were  more  or  less  nationalistic 
in  their  political  leanings,  and,  among  those  who 
were  reckoned  adherents  of  a  pure  state-rights 
belief  there  were  many  who,  deep  in  their  hearts, 

1  Telescope,  October  9,  30,  1829. 
3  Mercury,  August  6,  1829. 

3  Telescope,  October  30,  1829;  Hammond  Papers:  Hammond's 
July^4  address. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  43 

did  not  believe  in  that  doctrine  implicitly,  but 
supported  it  because  they  thought  it  the  best  for  the 
state  and  the  South  under  the  circumstances. 

An  excellent  example  of  this  class  was  an  am 
bitious,  earnest  young  lawyer,  striving  to  convince 
himself  honestly,  by  close  study,  as  to  the  true 
status  of  political  affairs.  He  wrote  to  an  intimate 
friend1  that  he  had  read  much  and  thought  more 
on  politics  during  the  past  year  than  he  was  will 
ing  to  acknowledge,  since  he  should  have  devoted 
his  time  chiefly  to  law.  The  result  of  his  reading 
and  reflection  had  been  first  to  throw  him  into  the 
ranks  of  those  who  thought  the  strict  and  liberal 
constructionists  both  went  too  far,  and  that  the 
true  constitutional  ground  lay  somewhere  between 
them.  But,  in  spite  of  his  conviction,  he  had 
gained  another,  a  sad  one:  that  it  was  to  the 
interest  of  the  South  to  cling  to  state  rights. 
Therefore  he  was  a  state-rights  man  and  believed 
that  the  state  should  prepare  to  act  according  to 
the  implications  of  that  doctrine.  Any  one  of 
the  respectable  class  who  believed  as  this  honest 
young  citizen  did,  but  in  whom  the  latter  con 
viction,  that  it  was  to  the  interest  of  the  South  to 

1  Hammond  Papers:  T.  W.  Brevard  to  J.  H.  Hammond,  October 
u,  1829. 


44     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

cling  to  state  rights,  even  to  the  literal  and  logical 
conclusions  of  that  doctrine,  was  not  sufficiently 
^ong,  would  not  throw  his  hat  into  the  ring  until 
more  thoroughly  convinced  that  it  was  necessary 
as  a  last  and  only  measure. 

When  the  legislature — with  which  some  in  the 
state  were  disgusted,  but  to  which  many  still  con 
fided  their  hope  for  the  future — met  on  the  last 
Monday  in  November,  it  spent  much  time  in 
lively  debate  on  the  question  of  federal  relations, 
and  ended  by  adopting  another  set  of  resolutions 
which  in  reality  went  little  if  at  all  farther  than 
the  previous  ones.  The  usurpations  of  the  general 
government  were  solemnly  deliberated  upon, 
and  in  the  House  were  referred  to  a  special  com 
mittee  of  seven1  upon  "Relations  with  the  General 
Government,"  which  was  the  precursor  of  a  stand 
ing  committee  upon  the  same  matter  in  later 
years,  known  as  the  "  Commit  tee  on  Federal 
Relations."  This  committee  recommended  a 
preamble  and  resolutions  which  the  House  adopted 
after  slightly  amending  them. 

They  expressed  confidence  in  the  President  and 
his  inaugural  promises  in  all  particulars  except  as 
to  the  tariff;  they  declared  that  a  mere  modifica- 

1  Composed  of  Preston,  Gregg,  Elliott,  Hayne,  Smith,  Toomer, 
and  Wardlaw. 


The  Origin  of  the  Conflict  45 

r~-  ~ 

tion  of  the  tariff  of  1828  without  a  relinquishment 
of  the  principles  on  which  it  was  founded  would 
not  satisfy  South  Carolina;  that  they  would  not 
express  any  fears  now  that  Congress  would  not 
do  justice  in  that  regard,  but  "  relying  on  the 
firmness  and  energies  of  the  state/'  they  would 
simply  "wait  for  the  proceedings  of  Congress  to 
show  whether  the  constitutional  confederacy  had 
been  overthrown  by  a  combination  of  interested 
majorities  against  which  there  was  no  conservative 
power  but  that  which  resided  in  the  states  as 
sovereigns."  They  recommended  that  the  gover 
nor  open  a  correspondence  with  the  South  Carolina 
delegation  in  Congress  and  concert  such  measures 
with  them,  during  the  recess  of  the  legislature,  as 
the  events  of  the  present  Congress  might  make 
necessary;  they  expressed  high  confidence  in  the 
zeal,  firmness,  and  discretion  of  the  governor  and 
the  delegation  in  Congress,  but  asked  that  such 
measures  as  they  might  decide  upon  as  best  be 
laid  before  the  legislature  or  the  people.  Although 
they  did  nothing  now,  it  seemed  to  be  agreed  in 
the  debates  that,  if  nothing  had  then  been  done 
by  1831  to  redress  southern  grievances,1  the  state 
should  then  take  action. 

1  Telescope,  December  24,  1829;  Courier,  December  7;  Mercury, 
December  21. 


CHAPTER  II 

NULLIFICATION  ADVOCATED  AND 
DENOUNCED  (1830) 

There  were  few  citizens  of  South  Carolina  who 
did  not  feel  some  degree  of  hope  that  the  session 
of  Congress  which  began  in  December  of  1829 
would  reform  the  tariff  in  a  manner  satisfactory 
to  the  South.  But  as  the  months  of  the  session 
passed  without  action,  the  conviction  rapidly 
spread  that  the  congressional  prospect  was  hope 
less.  A  report  of  the  House  Committee  on  Man 
ufactures  very  early  declared  it  inexpedient  to 
make  any  alteration  whatever  in  the  existing 
protective  system.  But  the  question  was  not  to 
be  thus  easily  dropped.  Proposals  of  change  were 
submitted,  and  in  the  debates  George  McDuffie, 
of  South  Carolina,  was  a  brilliant  advocate  of 
tariff  reduction.  He  offered  a  bill  which  would 
in  two  years  have  reduced  the  duties  upon  all  the 
prime  necessities  of  life,  including  woolen  and 
cotton  goods,  iron,  etc.,  to  the  standard  of  the  tariff 
of  1816.  But  even  the  genius  of  a  McDuffie  was 
without  force  against  what  seemed  to  be  the  grasp- 

46 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         47 

ing  hand  of  avarice.  His  bill  was  laid  upon  the 
table  by  a  decisive  vote.1  The  bill  which  was 
finally  passed,  based  largely  upon  the  Mallory 
bill  of  the  House  Committee  on  Manufactures, 
met  with  little  favor  in  South  Carolina.2 

After  the  receipt  of  the  first  report  in  which  the 
House  committee  declared  itself  adverse  to  any 
change,  one  paper  after  another  in  South  Carolina 
began  to  urge  that  the  state  should  be  "anchored 
on  her  own  energies "  and  arely  upon  her  own 
virtues."  The  report  seemed  to  say  that  a  system 
of  consolidation  would  be  fixed  upon  them, 
under  which  the  southern  states,  taxed  and 
oppressed  for  the  benefit  of  the  manufacturers, 
could  not  fail  to  sink  into  a  deplorable  state  of 
poverty  and  degradation,  unless! — unless  they 
asserted  their  rights  and  strove  for  redress  "by 
exercise  of  their  own  energies  as  sovereign  states."3 
It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  during  these  months  the 

1  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  VI,  Part  I,  pp.  555,  556. 

2  Mercury,  February  16,  1830;    Telescope,  May  7;   Congressional 
Debates,  Vol.  VI,  Parts  I  and  II. 

3  Telescope,  January  15,  1830;  Mercury,  January  13,  February  16. 
Thenceforward  these  papers  daily  recited  the  wrongs  which  the 
whole  governmental  system  inflicted  upon  the  South,  and  asked 
whether  the  states  would  submit  or  whether  they  would  not  prove 
themselves  worthy  of  the  Revolutionary  legacy  of  liberty.     The 
Mercury,  May  i,  1830,  contains  a  typical  editorial. 


48     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

appeals  were  largely  to  the  South  as  a  whole, 
and  that  the  talk  of  action  was  largely  in  vague 
phrases.  The  appeal  for  definite  state  action 
came  later. 

When  the  Mallory  bill  appeared,  the  main  fea 
tures  of  which  seemed  destined  to  be  retained,  it 
was  despised,  both  for  its  rates  and  for  its  obstruct 
ive  machinery.1  The  bill  as  finally  passed  by 
Congress  did  have  in  it  what  many  South  Caro 
linians  interpreted  as  a  pretense  at  conciliation  of 
southern  demands ;  but  this  was  soon  shown  in  its 
true  light  by  the  press  of  the  state,  and  by  all  but 
a  few  was  distinctly  rejected  as  a  concession.  The 
duties  on  tea,  coffee,  salt,  and  molasses  were  either 
materially  reduced  or  removed;  but  the  pro 
tection  of  manufactures  was  retained.  The  ma 
jority  of  the  papers  of  the  state  soon  pointed  out 
that  the  North  was  not  concerned  in  growing  any 
of  these  articles ;  it  was  concerned,  like  the  South, 
only  in  consuming  them.  It  was,  therefore, 
highly  beneficial  to  the  northerners  to  have  light 
duties  on  these  comforts  of  life.  They  were,  no 

1  Telescope,  February  12,  May  14,  1830;  Camden  Journal ',  May  8 
(this  paper  will  be  referred  to  hereafter  as  the  Journal);  Pendleton 
Messenger,  August  4  (this  paper  will  be  referred  to  hereafter  as  the 
Messenger};  Charleston  Southern  Patriot,  August  (this  paper  will  be 
referred  to  hereafter  as  the  Patriot). 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         49 

doubt,  willing  to  go  on  in  this  way  until  every 
cent  which  they  contributed  toward  the  support 
of  the  government  should  be  taken  off  and  the 
South  left  to  pay  the  expenses  of  government  and 
support  the  northern  manufactories  besides.1 
When  this  so-called  trick  was  exposed,  others, 
formerly  hopeful,  joined  the  ranks  of  those  who 
believed  that  not  a  shade  of  hope  remained  for  the 
South.  Whatever  would  be  done  would  be  "in 
further  insult  or  injury  to  the  despised  Planta 
tions"  and  in  further  violation  of  the  "prostituted 
parchment"  which  they  "called  in  mockery  a 
constitution."2  Some  of  these  joined  the  ranks 
of  the  bold  and  asked  how  long  such  things  were 
to  be  borne.  Could  a  sovereign  state,  having  in 
herself  the  undoubted  means  of  redress,  "with 
worse  than  womanish  weakness"  forbear  to  use 
them?  Had  her  citizens  who  did  so  the  hearts 
of  men?  The  doctrine  of  state  rights  must  be 
their  sole  safety,  and  many  rejoiced  at  the  spread 
of  this  doctrine  as  a  result  of  the  Webster-Hayne 
debate.3 

1  Mercury,  May  29,  1830;  Greenville  Mountaineer,  May  7. 

2  Columbia  Southern  Times,  May  17,  20,  1830.     (This  paper  will 
be  referred  to  hereafter  as  the  Times.} 

3  Times,  May   20,  June  10,  14,   1830;    Telescope,  July  2.     The 
Webster-Hayne  debate  is  further  treated  below,  p.  64. 


50     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

There  were  some,  however,  who  viewed  the 
action  of  Congress  as  a  promise  of  a  better  pro 
gram  for  the  future.1  The  Courier  was  even 
accused  of  trying  to  show  the  tariff  to  be  not  an 
evil  to  the  South,  but  a  positive  good.2  There 
were  also  some  few  in  the  state  who  were  said,  with 
some  degree  of  truth,  to  be  ready  to  sacrifice  the 
principle  for  which  the  state  stood  as  regarded 
internal  improvements.3  The  tariff  defenders 

1  Pendleton  Messenger,  March  24,  August  25,  1830;  Greenville 
Mountaineer,  June  1 1 . 

3  Mercury,  May  15, 1830.  The  Mercury  pronounced  this  an  insult 
to  the  people;  true,  some  prices  were  lower  than  they  had  been  before 
the  tariff  was  fixed,  but  this  was  in  spite  of  the  tariff,  and  they  would 
have  been  still  lower  without  it.  The  fall  in  prices  had  been  general, 
affecting  articles  unprotected  and  protected  alike,  and  was  due  to  the 
substitution  of  a  sound  for  a  depreciated  currency,  to  machinery 
improvements,  etc.;  prices  would  have  been  still  lower  but  for  the 
tariff. 

3  The  directors  of  the  South  Carolina  Canal  and  Railroad  Com 
pany  petitioned  Congress  to  purchase  some  of  its  stock.  This  was 
at  once  regarded  with  alarm  by  many  who  believed  that  it  would 
imperil  the  honor,  rights,  and  dignity  of  the  state,  and  who  were  even 
then  protesting  against  the  power  of  the  general  government  in 
relation  to  internal  improvements  (Courier,  March  5,  1829) .  Accord 
ingly,  on  December  2,  1829,  the  House  of  the  state  legislature  voted 
resolutions  requesting  the  South  Carolina  congressmen  to  oppose 
any  such  appropriations  for  internal  improvements  (Courier,  Decem 
ber  7,  1829).  On  January  i,  1830,  a  railroad  meeting  was  held  in 
Charleston  which  passed  resolutions  inviting  Congress  to  take  stock  in 
the  South  Carolina  Canal  and  Railroad  Company  and  a  committee 
was  appointed  to  memorialize  Congress  and  ask  the  South  Carolina 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         51 

cited,  as  a  precedent  worthy  of  following,  the 
stand  taken  by  South  Carolina  statesmen  in  I8I6.1 
The  anti-tariff  South  Carolinians  of  1830,  however, 
excused  these  men  of  1816  on  the  ground  that  they 
had  voted  for  the  tariff  distinctly  as  a  temporary 
measure,  to  be  reduced  to  20  per  cent  in  three 

congressmen,  and  their  representative,  Colonel  William  Drayton,  in 
particular,  to  support  the  memorial  (Mercury,  January  4,  1830; 
Courier,  January  4).  The  congressmen  were  thus  placed  between 
two  fires,  as  the  state  legislature  had  asked  them  to  discourage  this 
step.  The  Charleston  meeting  was  said  to  have  been  an  open  meet 
ing,  previously  announced,  attended  by  some  820,  and  engineered 
by  no  previous  organization  (Courier,  January  4,  1830).  The 
Mercury  tried  to  show,  however,  that  it  was  the  work  of  an  interested 
faction,  and  such  was  in  part  probably  the  case. 

Both  the  Courier  and  the  Patriot  (February  3  and  January  21, 
1830,  respectively)  held  that,  though  Congress  did  not  possess  the 
constitutional  power  to  execute  a  general  system  of  internal  improve 
ments,  it  might,  as  in  this  case,  invest  the  national  funds  in  a  manner 
that  did  not  in  any  manner  affect  the  sovereign  and  reserved  rights 
of  the  states.  The  New  York  American  thought  this  distinction  more 
specious  than  real.  The  Patriot  argued  that  this  was  not  an  infringe 
ment  on  state  sovereignty,  though  the  construction  of  a  general 
system  by  the  central  government  without  the  consent  of  the  states 
would  be;  and,  more  to  the  point,  that  this  was  a  mode  by  which 
South  Carolina  might  get  some  benefits  from  the  system  if  Congress 
were  to  persist  in  it. 

A  letter  was  sent  to  Drayton  by  the  Charleston  committee, 
requesting  him  to  support  the  memorial  in  which  Congress  was  asked 
to  buy  stock  in  the  South  Carolina  Canal  and  Railroad  Company. 
He  replied  that  he  could  not  do  so,  because  he  did  not  believe  such  a 


1  Patriot,  March  3,  1830. 


52     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

years,  and  as  a  special  concession  to  the  manu 
facturers  to  allow  them  to  withdraw  their  capital 
with  little  loss.  But  the  manufacturers  had  be 
trayed  the  trust  of  the  South  Carolina  delegation 
by  applying  for  an  extension  of  the  system, 
unsuccessfully  in  1820,  but  successfully  in  1824. 
James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  now  published  his  famous 

course  on  the  part  of  Congress  a  constitutional  one.  The  argu 
ments  usually  presented  to  impute  such  power  to  Congress  he  con 
sidered  mere  sophistry.  The  Mercury  strongly  approved  Drayton's 
course  (Mercury,  January  26,  27,  1830). 

This  episode  attracted  considerable  attention.  The  northern 
papers  seemed  to  interpret  it  as  an  indication  that  Charleston  was 
switching  principles  altogether.  The  Mercury,  however,  said  that 
those  who  approved  were  merely  the  same  ones  who  had  long  been  for 
a  tariff  and  for  internal  improvements,  together  with  a  few  who, 
though  honest  opponents  of  the  tariff  and  internal  improvements, 
thought  that  Congress  could  constitutionally  invest  the  public 
funds  in  the  stock  of  private  companies,  and  who,  lamenting  the 
depression  of  the  city  and  state,  thought  it  desirable  that  an  effort 
be  made  to  revive  them  by  such  an  investment  in  the  sotck  of  the 
South  Carolina  company  (Mercury,  January  27,  1830).  General 
Robert  Y.  Hayne  came  out,  in  a  letter  made  public  (Columbia 
Southern  Times,  February  8),  to  show  that  this  was  sacrificing  all 
principle,  and  a  meeting  at  Walterboro,  always  in  the  van,  de 
nounced  the  petition  of  the  company  as  destitute  of  propriety  and 
expediency  and  unworthy  of  being  countenanced  by  the  citizens  of 
South  Carolina  (Mercury,  February  17).  It  was  not  that  they  opposed 
the  railroad,  but  that  the  state  was  engaged  in  a  struggle  for  political 
liberties,  the  successful  issue  of  which  was  endangered  by  such  a 
petition.  It  seemed  to  be  a  case  of  trying  to  eat  one's  cake  and 
have  it  too. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         53 

confession  that  in  1821  he  was  laboring  under  "an 
honest  but  blind  delusion"  in  advocating  the 
exercise  by  Congress  of  powers  which  he  had  since 
come  to  see  were  ruinous  to  South  Carolina. 
He  added  that  he  was  not  alone  in  this  change 
of  sentiment  between  1821  and  1830,  but  that 
nineteen-twentieths  of  South  Carolina  citizens 
had  also  thus  changed.1 

Although  the  South  Carolina  Exposition  came 
out  during  the  legislative  session  of  1828,  the 
following  year,  as  has  been  shown,  was  one  of  lull. 
During  and  after  the  session  of  Congress,  which 
sat  through  the  first  part  of  1830  without  giving 
satisfactory  relief,  many  went  back  to  the  nulli 
fication  doctrine  and  from  that  time  on  a  number 
of  leaders  urged  that  it  be  carried  to  the  point  of 
action.  At  first  the  doctrine  suffered  because  of 
the  disunion  imputation,  and  soon  the  main  object 
of  the  nullification  advocates  became  the  removal 
of  the  disunion  stigma. 

In  this  period  of  educating  the  people  as  to  the 
merits  of  nullification,  one  of  the  writers  who  early 
in  the  year  attracted  considerable  attention  was 
' '  Hampden . ' '  This  writer  was  Francis  W.  Pickens , 

1  Courier,  August  23,  1830;  see  Houston,  Nullification  in  South 
Carolina,  chap.  i. 


54     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

of  Edgefield,  a  statesman  of  no  mean  ability.1 
"Hampden"  as  a  literary  character  became  widely 
known,  but  his  identity  was  long  kept  a  secret.2 
These  articles  appeared  first  in  the  Edgefield 
Carolinian,  but  were  copied  by  other  papers  in  the 
state.3  But  as  yet  only  the  more  courageous 

1  Hammond  Papers:   Pickens  to  Hammond,  March  8,  1830. 

2  Hammond  Papers:   Eldred  Simkins,  Sr.,  to  Hammond,  March, 
1830,  shows  how  much  some  men  wrote  for  the  press  over  assumed 
names,   and   how  well  the  secret  as  to  the  identity  of  these  men 
was  kept. 

3  Columbia  Southern  Times,  May  13,  1830.     In  a  letter  to  Ham 
mond,  editor  of  the  Times  (Hammond  Papers:  Pickens  to  Hammond, 
March  8,  1830),  asking  him  to  publish  the  articles,  Pickens  showed 
clearly  how  deeply  he  felt  the  importance  of  the  situation.    He  said 
in  part:    "I  have  thought  long  and  intensely  on  these  subjects; 
I  write  not  in  haste  or  in  passion,  but  in  cool  reflection  and  fixed 
determination.     I  have  ....  investigated  my  conclusions  and  I 
write  to  enlighten  those  who  have  not  the  means  of  knowing,  as 
well  as  to  excite  those  who  know  and  feel  not.     I  think  it  idle  to 
attempt  to  rouse  a  community  to  act  before  you  inform  them  where 

they  are  and  what  they  stand  on I  am  for  decided  action.     I 

love  the  Union  and  think  it  can  only  be  preserved  by  an  open, 
fearless,  and  manly  course  in  the  state  as  a  sovereign  in  this  con 
federacy I  have  no  motive  in  making  the  present  request 

of  you,  or  in  writing  those  numbers,  but  to  advance  the  rights  and 
indicate  the  wrongs  of  my  degraded  and  oppressed  country.     I 
feel  as  an  injured  freeman  and  hope  that  the  community  may  feel  the 
same."     He  said  that  he  would  have  sent  the  numbers  to  Hammond 
first,  had  he  not  feared  that  the  local  editors  would  take  it  as  a  deser 
tion  of  their  paper  if  they  suspected  the  authorship;    furthermore, 
"there  had  been  so  much  written  on  the  subject  in  Columbia  that 
the  people  might  begin  to  think  that  it  was  only  the  community  about 
that  place  who  entertained  sentiments  and  feelings  similar  to  those 
embodied  in  the  numbers." 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         55 

would  openly  and  actively  support  the  nullification 
theory.  Pickens  agreed  with  Hammond1  that  the 
people  were  not  as  advanced  in  position  as  were 
many  of  the  leaders,  particularly  in  their  stand 
on  disunion  as  a  possible  ultimate  necessity; 
to  educate  the  people  up  to  this  final  point, 
Pickens  wrote  the  "Hampden"  numbers.  But 
at  the  same  time  he  believed  that  a  great  body  of 
the  intelligent  citizens  were  far  ahead  of  some  of 
the  would-be  leaders,  lawyers  particularly,  who 
would  not  risk  the  loss  of  popular  favor  by  associat 
ing  themselves  with  the  tenet  of  disunion.  When 
the  people  showed  signs  of  being  ready  for  it,  these 
petty  leaders  would  be  in  the  van;  but  they  would 
not  declare  themselves  thus  early,  when  their 
leadership  would  count  for  most.  For  such  men 
he  had  only  contempt,  and  he  predicted  that 
they  would  inevitably  be  lost  "in  the  great 
struggle  that  must  sooner  or  later  agitate  this 
country  deeper  than  it  has  ever  yet  anticipated." 
In  reading  such  statements  one  is  likely  to  think 
.  that  the  authors  must  have  anticipated  a  clash  of 
physical  forces,  of  arms,  indeed;  yet  nearly  invari 
ably  these  writers  maintained,  as  did  Pickens,  that 
the  states  had  under  the  Constitution  a  moral 

1  Hammond  Papers:  Pickens  to  Hammond,  March  13,  1830. 


56     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

power,  in  their  reserved  powers,  which  could  give 
entire  redress,  and  to  the  support  of  which  at 
least  half  the  states  would  rally  if  it  became  an 
issue.  Some  of  the  defendents  of  the  faith  might 
have  added  privately,  as  did  Pickens,  "but  if  we 
do  not  succeed  constitutionally  and  peaceably, 
I  am  free  to  confess  that  I  am  for  any  extreme, 
even  'war  up  to  the  hilt,'  rather  than  go  down 
to  infamy  and  slavery  'with  &  government  of 
unlimited  powers/7  He  favored  immediate 
action,  for  to  his  mind  there  never  had  been  as 
good  a  time  for  the  state  to  act  as  then.  The 
administration  was  really  weak,  and  from  the 
constitution  of  the  parties  in  the  general  govern 
ment  its  power  was  lessened;  it  might  in  a  few 
years  be  otherwise.1 

The  possibility  that  nullification  might  involve 
disunion  caused  many  to  hesitate;  this  is  abun 
dantly  shown  by  the  correspondence,  pamphlets, 
and  newspapers  of  the  time.  Many,  however, 
believed  implicitly  that  there  was  a  conception 
of  nullification  in  which  even  the  possibility  of 
secession  had  no  place,  and  that,  in  fact,  in  so  far 
as  resistance  to  the  obnoxious  laws  of  Congress  was 

1  Hammond  Papers:  Pickens  to  Hammond,  May  13,  June  26, 
1830. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         57 

likely  to  be  successful  or  even  beneficial,  it  must 
be  legal  or  constitutional.1  Some  openly  broached 
the  subject  of  peaceable  secession  from  the  Union 
and  contended  that  such  action  was  not  only 
justifiable  but  would  leave  the  general  govern 
ment  without  power  or  pretense  of  a  reason  for 
coercion.2  Others  thought  of  nullification  and 
secession  as  two  entirely  distinct  measures  by 
no  means  closely  related,  the  latter  to  be  thought 
of  only  as  a  last  resort.3  This  class  thought  that 
there  was  great  evil  in  writing  and  talking  about 
disunion  or  secession,  because  it  would  shock  and 
disgust  the  people  to  such  an  extent  that  it 
would  prejudice  them  against  any  remedy  what 
ever  and  prepare  them  for  submission. 

While  many  saw  clearly  the  relation  between 
nullification  and  secession,  and  that  the  latter 
might  follow  the  former,  they  differed  widely  as  to 
their  predictions  of  what  would  actually  happen 
in  case  nullification  were  tried.  Many  of  this 
class  clearly  defined  nullification  as  an  exercise 
of  the  sovereign  authority  of  the  state,  declaring 

1  Hammond    Papers:     William    D.    Martin,    representative    at 
Washington,  to  Hammond,  March  10,  1830. 

2  A  writer  in  the  Columbia  Telescope  in  the  fall  of  1829. 

3  Hammond  Papers:  Eldred  Simkins,  Sr.,  to  Hammond,  March, 
1830. 


58     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

a  law  of  the  general  government  void  and  inopera 
tive  in  that  state  on  account  of  its  unconstitu- 
tionality.  In  other  words,  they  held  that 
authority  to  pass  it  was  not  delegated  by  the 
states  in  the  formation  of  the  Union,  and,  that 
the  state,  not  having  agreed  when  it  entered  the 
confederacy  to  the  exercise  of  such  authority  by 
Congress,  would  not  allow  it  to  be  exercised  now 
unless  three-fourths  of  the  states,  according  to 
the  terms  of  the  Constitution,  agreed  to  make 
this  sanction  an  addition  to  that  Constitution. 
In  that  event  the  state  must  submit,  or  rebel 
against  its  own  stipulations  and  revolutionize  the 
government.1  In  the  case  of  the  tariff  the  consent 
of  the  three-fourths  of  the  states,  necessary  to  give 
the  power  to  continue  to  pass  tariffs,  would  not 
be  secured;2  the  southern  cause  would  be  tri 
umphant  and  the  republic  saved.  Surely  there 
was  nothing  dreadful  about  that.3 

1  Columbia  Southern  Times,  May  10,  1830. 

2  The  tariff  men  could  muster  eighteen  states,  but  that  would 
not  be  three-fourths. 

3  To  make  this  process  more  simple,  some  suggested  that  the 
southern  states  should  endeavor  to  procure  such  an  amendment  to  the 
federal  Constitution  as  would  give  one-fourth  of  the  states,  through 
their  representatives  in  Congress,  the  power  to  demand  that  an  act 
of   the   federal  legislature,   threatening   an   infringement   of   their 
rights  or  affecting  their  interests,  should  be  passed  by  a  majority 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         59 

Still  others  who  saw  clearly  the  relation  of 
nullification  to  secession  professed  loudly  that  the 
party  in  South  Carolina  opposed  to  the  usurpations 
of  the  federal  government  did  not  desire  disunion; 
they  claimed  to  contemplate  nothing  but  a  peace 
able  and  constitutional  assertion  of  the  rights  of 
the  state;  but  they  admitted  that  if  she  were 
opposed  in  restoring  the  Constitution  to  her 
conception  of  its  purity,  the  Union  might  be  dis 
solved;  they  then  placidly  washed  their  hands  of 
all  blame  in  such  an  event  by  saying  that  such 
blame  must  be  laid  at  the  door  of  those  who  first 
trampled  on  the  Constitution.  Many  of  this 
class  were  not  entirely  honest  in  their  public 
professions.  In  reading  the  editorials  of  many 
of  the  ardent  nullification  sheets  the  reader  feels 
that  while  they  tried  to  belittle  the  possibility  of 
disunion,  and  to  shift  all  blame  for  such  an  event 
from  their  shoulders,  yet  they  really  saw  that 
disunion  was  quite  likely  to  result  from  the 
step  they  urged.1 

of  three-fourths,  voting  by  states,  of  both  branches  of  Congress. 
This  they  viewed  as  the  only  principle  which  would  effectually 
protect  the  minority  under  a  confederated  government  (Charleston 
Southern  Patriot,  May  8,  n,  1830). 

1  Mercury,  March  27,  1830;  Telescope,  June  18,  July  16;  Times , 
June  17. 


60     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Another  large  class,  then  becoming  known  as 
the  Union  party,  decried  nullification  in  any  form 
whatsoever.  To  them  the  doctrine,  however  dis 
guised,  spelled  revolution.1 

During  the  greater  part  of  1830,  men  were  read 
ing  and  talking,  and  perhaps  thinking;  they 
were  preparing  themselves  to  be  aligned  when 
party  lines  became  rigidly  and  severely  drawn. 
By  the  middle  of  the  year  the  moderates  seemed  to 
be  gaining  the  upper  hand  in  a  way  that  set  the 
action  party  on  its  guard.2  Judge  William  Smith, 
General  Stephen  D.  Miller,  and  General  James 
Blair  were  now  looked  upon  by  the  nullification 
supporters  as  prominent  among  the  advocates 
of  moderation  whom  it  would  be  desirable  to  crush 
or  cajole  into  shifting  their  position.  More  work 
of  education  had  to  be  done  in  the  cause  of  nulli 
fication;  the  people  did  not  understand  it  well 
enough.  Pickens  thought  the  Nullification  party 
was  neglecting  its  campaign  of  education  by  not 
publishing  more  pamphlets,  which  he  considered 

1  Patriot,   July   and   August,    1830;    Columbia  Southern    Times 
&•  State  Gazette,  July  8.     On  this  date  the  Southern  Times  took  this 
new  title.     It  will  still  be  referred  to  hereafter  simply  as  the  Times. 
The  Unionists  will  receive  more  attention  below. 

2  Hammond  Papers:    Pickens  to  Hammond,  June  26,  1830. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         61 

far  more  effective  with  the  people  than  newspaper 
articles.1 

Public  dinners  and  barbecues  came  thick  and 
fast  in  June  and  July.  The  toasts  reported  from 
the  various  campaign  feasts  showed  a  great  variety 
of  sentiment.  The  sentiments  were  nearly  unan 
imous  in  their  deep  sense  of  the  wrongs  of  the 
South  and  their  determined  resolution  to  redress 
them;  but  as  to  the  measure  of  redress  they 
differed  widely.  Nullification  by  the  legislature, 
by  state  convention,  secession,  disunion,  a  con 
vention  of  southern  states,  were  all  proposed. 
Some,  however,  expressed  dissatisfaction  with 
the  state  rights  and  "  Carolina"  doctrines.  Most 
of  them  professed  love  for  the  Union,  but  greater 
love  for  state  sovereignty  to  resist  oppression. 

1  Hammond  Papers:  Pickens  to  Hammond,  June  26,  1830:  ".  . .  . 
We  are  negligent  in  one  thing,  and  that  is  that  we  do  not  take  pains 
enough  to  spread  information  in  an  easy  way  and  in  such  a  way  before 
the  people  that  they  would  read  it.  Now  when  we  get  into  the  tariff 
and  internal  improvement  country,  we  see,  on  every  man's  table  who 
has  the  slightest  influence,  piles  of  writing  in  pamphlets  on  those 
subjects  which  are  so  interesting  to  them,  and  by  this  systematic 
....  course  [they]  affect  public  opinion  there;  they  keep  the 
people  united  and  excited.  Here  we  have  nothing  of  it.  We  have 
had  nothing  hardly  but  the  Crisis  published  so  that  everybody  would 
read  it,  and  that  was  so  blunt  and  coarse  [with]  its  talk  about  disunion, 

that  the  people  were  chilled  by  it The  people  will  not  read 

in  the  newspapers  so  well  and  with  as  much  impression  anything,  as 
if  it  were  in  a  pamphlet  before  them." 


62     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Clearly,  however,  there  was  no  strong  demand  for 
nullification,  and  secession  was  far  from  the 
thoughts  of  all  but  a  few.1 

At  Charleston  on  July  i  a  " public  dinner"  was 
given  in  honor  of  William  Dray  ton  and  Robert  Y. 
Hayne,  "exclusively  by  Friends  of  the  Southern 
States."2  About  six  hundred  banqueters  were 
accommodated  at  the  city  hall.  Hayne  had 
before  been  the  spokesman  for  the  Nullifiers  and 
he  did  not  disappoint  them  this  time.  Drayton, 
however,  spoke  against  nullification,  and  upheld 
the  federal  judiciary  in  a  way  that  long  rankled  in 
the  minds  of  the  Nullifiers  and  called  forth  many 
an  article  and  editorial  to  show  that  there  were  cases 
in  which  a  state  might  throw  itself  upon  its  sover 
eignty  and  protect  its  citizens  from  an  uncon 
stitutional  law,  in  spite  of  a  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  that  the  law  was  constitutional;  the 
Constitution  itself,  indeed,  needed  the  protecting 
shield  of  state  sovereignty  against  Congress  and 
the  Supreme  Court.3  To  Dray  ton's  assertion 
that  a  government  whose  acts  were  not  obligatory 
on  its  citizens  would  be  a  strange  anomaly,  it 

1  Times,  July,  1830;  Mercury  and  Courier  for  the  same  month. 

2  Mercury,  July  2,  1830;  Times,  July  22. 

3  Mercury,  July  8,  13,  1830. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         63 

was  answered  that  a  government  whose  every  act 
was  obligatory  on  its  citizens  would  be  much  more 
dangerous,  if  not  equally  anomalous;  the  pecul 
iarly  happy  feature  of  our  government  was,  it 
was  said,  that  to  resist  the  unconstitutional  and 
oppressive  abuses  of  power  was  not  rebellion  nor 
revolution,  as  in  other  governments,  because 
of  the  possible  intervention  of  the  state  veto.1 
Other  men  spoke  at  this  dinner,  among  whom 
were  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  Robert  J.  Turnbull, 
Henry  L.  Pinckney,  and  Langdon  Cheves.  The 
first  three  were  Nullifiers;  but  the  last-named 
observed  that  the  southern  states  were  all  equally 
interested  in  the  existing  crisis  and  that  it  would 

1  Drayton  recommended  a  course  of  reasoning  with  the  North 
as  all  that  was  warrantable  or  necessary  to  induce  it  to  yield  on 
the  tariff.  Such  a  program  was  said  to  be  worthy  of  a  new  leaf  in 
"the  history  of  knight  errantry,  expressly  to  record  the  adventures 
of  a  champion  who  would  venture  forth  armed  only  with  his  bugle, 
expecting  to  demolish  ramparts  and  prostrate  veteran  warriors  by 
its  enchanting  sounds  alone;  and,  what  would  add  infinitely  to  the 
romance  of  his  achievements,  by  proclaiming  with  loud  voice  to  all 
he  meets,  the  appalling  alternative,  that  if  they  did  not  yield,  he 
would."  Nothing  but  decided  and  immediate  action  would  do,  said 
the  editor  of  the  Times,  July  22,  26,  1830.  "Moultrie"  in  the 
Mercury,  August  7,  took  almost  the  same  position.  He  noticed  the 
"crocodile  eulogiums"  pronounced  by  the  northern  press  on  Dray- 
ton's  speech,  because  it  counseled  conservatism  which  the  northerners 
interpreted  to  be  an  assurance  that  their  aggressions  would  not  be 
resisted  seriously. 


64     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

not  do  for  South  Carolina  to  take  any  step  without 
their  co-operation.1  The  dinner  was  looked  upon 
by  many  Unionists  as  a  political  move  on  the 
part  of  the  Nullification-Disunion  party  to  popu 
larize  its  doctrines.2 

The  Webster-Hayne  debate  was  a  fortunate 
piece  of  advertising  for  the  doctrine  of  nullifica 
tion,  and  came  just  at  a  time  when  such  publicity 
was  most  needed.  The  South  Carolina  papers 
printed  many  of  the  speeches  almost  entire.3  The 
nullification  press  of  course  gave  most  of  its 
space  to  Robert  Y.  Hayne,  enthusiastically 
approved  his  exposition,  and  slurringly  referred 
to  Daniel  Webster  as  the  "Janus-faced,  blue-light 
federalist"  or  in  other  terms  equally  reproachful. 
Webster  was  not  without  his  worshipers,  however, 
even  in  South  Carolina,  and  a  few  papers  pro- 

1  Mountaineer,  July  16,  1830. 

2  It  was  said  that  the  Mercury  had  wanted  to  hold  a  big  public 
meeting  to  get  Hayne's  nullification  doctrines  indorsed,  but  had 
gauged  popular  opinion  to  be  adverse;  under  the  circumstances  the 
best  it  could  do,  to  get  anybody  at  all  to  attend,  was  to  give  a  dinner 
and  invite  Drayton;  his  friends  attended  because  they  knew  he  would 
disavow  the  doctrines  of  Hayne  and  Turnbull  (see  Gazette,  June, 
1830;  Courier,  July  9). 

3  Mercury,  February  2,  March  17,  1830;    Telescope,  March  5; 
Mountaineer,  February  27;   Times,  February  and  March;   Congres 
sional  Debates,  Vol.  VI,  Part  I;    Houston,  Nullification  in  South 
Carolina,  chap.  vi. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         65 

noimced  his  to  be  a  lucid  and  just  exposition  of 
the  true  principles  of  our  government,  an  able 
and  unanswerable  defense  of  the  Constitution 
against  the  dangerous  construction  of  its  powers 
which  would  render  not  only  its  efficiency,  but 
its  very  existence,  dependent  upon  the  caprice  of 
a  state  legislature.1 

The  feature  of  the  debate  which  seemed  most 
to  encourage  the  Nullifiers  was  the  indorsement 
of  Hayne's  position  by  certain  men  from  all  parts 
of  the  North;  what  had  lately  been  called  a 
treasonable  tendency  and  derided  as  the  "  Carolina 
doctrine"  thus  gained  supporters  from  sections 
supposed  to  be  completely  inimical;  the  increasing 
popularity  of  the  cause  seemed  abundantly  wit 
nessed.  The  whole  issue  gained  importance  by 
being  transferred  from  the  newspapers  and  some 
of  the  state  legislatures  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States.  Since  some  of  the  friends  of  the  adminis 
tration  supported  the  principles  set  forth  by 
Hayne,  the  Mercury  ventured  to  predict  that  the 
President  himself  would  consistently  maintain 
them.  With  the  right  of  a  state  to  nullify  a 
dangerous  and  unconstitutional  law  apparently 
admitted  by  some  of  the  ablest  statesmen  of  all 

1  Courier,  March  9,  1830;  Gazette,  March  9. 


66     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

sections,  the  nullification  papers  boasted  that 
their  doctrines  were  rapidly  extending  to  all  parts 
of  the  Union.  This  had  its  effect  on  many  of 
the  doubtful  and  the  timid  in  South  Carolina,  and 
encouraged  the  leaders  to  press  more  boldly  their 
demands  for  action.  Surely,  they  argued,  now 
when  the  cause  seemed  on  the  way  to  victory, 
its  parent  state,  South  Carolina,  should  not  falter.1 
Others  thought  that  the  debate  decided  nothing 
except  that  "orthodoxy  is  my  doxy,  and  hetero 
doxy  is  your  doxy."  Some  of  the  Nullifiers 
admitted  that  the  debate  on  abstract  principles 
left  the  issue  an  open  one  until  decided  by  a 
concrete  case.  This  they  thought  to  be  at  hand, 
and  they  held  it  the  duty  of  South  Carolina  to 
force  the  issue.  It  would  be  a  glorious  achieve 
ment  if  the  people  of  South  Carolina  asserted 
and  maintained  her  sovereignty.  But  if  they 
meanly  shrank  from  the  contest,  awed  by  imagi 
nary  fears,  and  submitted  to  all  the  wrongs  heaped 
upon  them,  unmitigated  oppression  would  be 
their  present  doom,  and  future  infamy  their 
merited  reward.  The  October  elections  must 
decide  her  fate.2 

1  Mercury,  March  23,  April  i,  1830;  Telescope,  March  5. 

2  Times,  April  i,  1830;  Messenger,  March  10. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         67 

In  the  movement  leading  to  the  organization  of 
the  Union  party  the  most  prominent  figure,  in 
the  uplands  at  least,  was  Benjamin  F.  Perry, 
who  in  January,  1830,  launched  the  Greenville 
Mountaineer.1  Perry  was  a  clear  thinker,  an  able 
writer,  and  a  fearless  advocate.  In  contrast  to 
the  Nullifiers,  who  preached  state  sovereignty  as 
the  sine  qua  non  of  existence  and  belittled  the 
Union  on  all  occasions,  the  first  principle  in  Perry's 
faith  was  a  belief  in  the  people  as  the  only 
true  and  legitimate  sovereigns;  and  the  next 
dearest  object  of  his  thoughts  was  the  Union  of 
the  United  States.  The  only  circumstance  that 
could  induce  him  to  contemplate  a  dissolution 
would  be  the  necessity  of  doing  so  to  preserve 
republican  government;  but  that  such  a  con 
tingency  would  ever  arise  he.  could  not  believe. 

The  great  body  of  the  Union  men  were  opposed 
to  all  protective  duties ;  they  thought  the  existing 
tariff  unjust,  oppressive,  and  a  fraud  upon  the 
Constitution,  because  it  purported  to  be  a  revenue 
measure  and  was  avowedly  a  protective  measure. 
But  they  preferred  to  suffer  while  evils  were  suffer- 
able,  relying  on  a  returning  sense  of  justice  in  the 
American  people. 

1  Mountaineer,  January  16,  1830. 


68     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

To  them  the  Constitution  was  a  complex  but 
harmonious  scheme  of  civil  polity,  every  part  of 
which  was  equally  necessary  to  the  support  and 
well-being  of  the  whole.  The  powers  of  sover 
eignty  were  distributed  among  the  several  state 
legislatures  and  the  government  of  the  United 
States.  To  the  federal  government  had  been 
delegated  certain  express  powers,  and  in  the 
exercise  of  these  powers  this  government  was 
unlimited.  To  the  state  governments  belonged 
all  powers  not  ceded  to  the  general  government 
and  not  expressly  denied  them  in  the  federal 
Constitution  or  in  their  own  respective  constitu 
tions.  In  the  exercise  of  their  legitimate  powers 
the  state  authorities  were  supreme,  and  any 
encroachment  upon  their  spheres  by  the  United 
States  was  an  unwarrantable  usurpation.  But 
to  call  either  the  state  authorities  or  the  people 
of  any  state  an  independent  sovereignty,  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  word,  was  unquestionably  a 
misnomer;  for  neither  the  state  governments 
nor  the  people  of  the  states  had  the  right  to 
declare  war,  make  peace,  form  alliances,  regulate 
foreign  commerce,  keep  an  army,  or  build  a  navy, 
all  of  which  powers  were  essential  to  sovereignty.1 

1  Mountaineer,  January  16,  April  23,  1830. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced        69 

At  one  period  in  the  history  of  our  country,  said 
the  Union  men,  the  states  were  independent 
sovereignties.  This  was  immediately  after  their 
separation  from  the  British  crown  and  before  the 
adoption  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  Then 
each  state  had  the  power  to  do  what  it  pleased 
and  was  under  the  control  of  no  authority.  It 
could  declare  war,  make  peace,  and  enter  into 
treaties  of  alliance.  But  on  the  adoption  of  the 
Articles,  and  still  more  on  the  adoption  of  the 
federal  Constitution,  the  states  had  yielded  up  a 
large  portion  of  their  sovereignty  for  the  purpose 
of  forming  a  government  which  should  be  able 
to  protect  and  defend  their  rights.  They  from 
that  time  on  ceased  to  be  sovereign.  They 
were  from  then  on  unknown  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth.  The  states  might  properly  be 
called  sovereigns  in  the  exercise  of  their  reserved 
rights,  but  to  apply  the  term  any  further  was  a 
misnomer. 

The  consolidation  of  all  power  in  the  general 
government  on  the  one  hand,  said  the  Union  men 
further,  and  the  separation  of  the  several  states  on 
the  other,  would  be  equally  fatal  to  liberty.  There 
would  arise  out  of  the  one  a  despotism  which  would 
grind  and  crush  everything  to  earth;  and  out  of 


70     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

the  other  would  come  confusion,  anarchy,  and 
civil  war,  with  a  horrible  train  of  calamities.  In 
construing  the  federal  Constitution  equal  care 
should  be  observed  to  avoid  both  these  issues. 
An  unlimited  latitudinarian  construction  would 
give  rise  to  the  one,  and  a  rigid  literal  construc 
tion,  by  disarming  the  national  government  of  its 
ceded  power,  would  cause  the  other. 

The  federal  judiciary,  to  the  Union  men,  was 
the  great  arbiter  between  the  national  and  state 
governments,  and  they  believed  that  this  tre 
mendous  power  of  settling  disputes  between  these 
governments  could  not  have  been  lodged  any 
where  else  with  so  much  propriety.  To  say  that 
each  state  had  the  right,  either  in  convention  or 
in  its  legislature,  to  determine  on  the  constitution 
ality  of  the  proceedings  of  the  general  government, 
would  be  to  place  the  country  in  that  desperate 
extremity  in  which  it  was  under  the  Articles  of 
Confederation.  The  power  to  settle  disputes 
between  the  general  and  state  governments  had  to 
be  vested  somewhere;  it  was  the  intention  of  the 
Federal  Convention  to  make  the  judiciary  the 
interpreter  and  guardian  protector  of  the  Consti 
tution;  this  intention  was  clearly  and  indis 
putably  expressed  in  the  Constitution  itself;  this 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         71 

was  the  sense  of  all  parties  at  the  time  of  the 
adoption  of  that  social  compact;  the  Supreme 
Court  had  invariably  exercised  this  power  ever 
since  its  first  establishment;  and,  consequently, 
this  tribunal  was  properly  the  great  arbiter  in  all 
matters  arising  between  the  national  and  state 
governments. 

The  opinions  of  many  national  statesmen  from 
the  time  of  the  Federal  Convention,  including 
many  South  Carolinians,  and  the  Exposition  of 
1828  itself,  were  cited  to  verify  this  view.  The 
federal  judges  were  not,  as  some  persons  said,  the 
interested  creatures  of  the  general  government. 
They  were  indebted  for  their  appointment  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  whose  especial  care  it  was 
to  guard  the  sovereign  rights  of  the  states.  They 
held  their  offices  during  good  behavior  and  were 
selected  for  their  talents,  learning,  and  purity  of 
character.  Their  salaries  could  not  be  diminished 
and  they  were  responsible  to  Congress  for  nothing 
but  misdemeanors  in  office.  Such  men,  under 
such  circumstances,  were  not  easily  influenced. 
But  this  view  was  somewhat  marred  by  a  willing 
ness  to  admit  that  the  federal  judges  were  more 
likely  to  have  a  partiality  for  the  national  than  for 
the  state  governments.  On  the  whole,  the  Union 


72     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

men  were  quite  as  dogmatic  about  the  place  occu 
pied  by  the  Supreme  Court  as  were  the  Nullifiers. 

As  to  the  power  of  nullification  vested  in  a 
state,  whence  was  it  derived?  The  Unionists 
answered,  Surely  not  from  the  federal  Constitu 
tion  itself.  There  was  nothing  in  that  compact 
which  would  warrant  such  a  deduction.  Some  of 
the  Nullifiers,  however,  averred  that  it  was 
derived  from  the  very  nature  of  an  agreement 
entered  into  by  independent  sovereignties.  But 
the  Union  men  did  not  think  so.  It  appeared 
to  them  utterly  impossible,  from  the  nature  of 
the  federal  Constitution,  that  such  a  power 
should  inhere  in  the  states.  They  could  not  con 
ceive  how  the  right  of  nullification  could  be  exer 
cised  compatibly  with  the  principle  of  the  Union. 

If  to  each  state  were  given  the  power  of  decid 
ing  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  general  government,  where  would  be  the 
bond  of  union  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  always 
discretionary  with  the  states  whether  they  would 
submit  to  an  act  of  Congress  or  put  their  veto  upon 
it?  What  obligation  or  compulsion  would  they 
be  under  to  be  governed  by  a  law  of  the  United 
States  ?  None,  answered  the  Union  men,  save 
their  own  arbitrary  will  or  pleasure.  If  a  measure 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         73 

of  the  general  government  were  unacceptable  to 
any  one  state,  she  would  have  nothing  to  do  but 
to  pronounce  it  unconstitutional  and  by  this  means 
get  rid  of  it.  It  was  no  argument  to  say  that  some 
laws  could  not  be  called  unconstitutional;  for 
men  when  prompted  by  passion  and  interest  would 
see  everything  through  jaundiced  eyes.  The 
plainest  and  most  positive  gifts  of  power  would  be 
doubted  and  misunderstood.  It  seemed  to  the 
Union  men  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt  that 
this  power  of  nullification  would  make  for  an 
infinitely  weaker  government  than  that  which 
had  existed  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation. 
The  only  parallel  for  such  a  union  was  to  be  found 
in  this  country  during  the  Revolutionary  war. 
Then  the  states  were  bound  by  no  confederation 
save  that  of  mutual  interest  and  common  danger. 
They  were  told,  however,  that  there  was  a  pos 
sible  check  on  this  veto  of  the  states.  When  an  act 
of  Congress  had  been  declared  unconstitutional, 
an  appeal  might  be  carried  from  this  decision  of  one 
state  to  a  convention  of  all  the  states.  If  three- 
fourths  of  the  states  should  concur  in  upholding 
it  as  constitutional,  then  it  must  become  a  law, 
and  the  state  pronouncing  it  unconstitutional 
would  be  forced  to  submit.  Thus,  it  seemed,  the 


74     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

whole  machinery  of  government  was  to  stop  until 
a  federal  convention  could  be  called. 

Suppose  war  were  declared  and  the  little  state  of 
Rhode  Island,  seeing  that  her  commerce  was  about 
to  be  cut  off  and  ruined  thereby,  should  say  the 
war  was  unconstitutional  and  put  her  veto  on  it; 
this  would  end  the  matter  until  a  convention  could 
be  called.  In  the  meantime  the  enemy  would  be 
free  to  range  the  country  and  to  leave  it  when  he 
saw  fit.  The  friends  of  nullification  might  suppose, 
however,  that  a  generous  foe  would  wait  until  the 
federal  convention  could  settle  the  constitutional 
ity  of  the  war.  But  if  the  votes  of  three-fourths  of 
the  states  could  not  be  obtained  in  favor  of  the 
war,  the  government  would  have  to  surrender 
at  discretion  to  the  enemy.  The  Union  men 
doubted  very  much  whether  this  would  not  have 
been  found  literally  true  during  the  War  of  1812 
when  the  Hartford  Convention  assembled.  At 
that  time  one-fourth  of  the  states  were  opposed 
to  the  war  and  could  have  put  an  end  to  it.  It 
could  not  be  said  that  a  division  of  opinion  could 
never  arise  as  to  so  plain  a  matter  as  the  legality 
of  a  war,  said  the  Union  men,  for  the  people  of 
New  England  would  no  doubt  have  raised  that 
very  question  during  the  War  of  1812  if  they 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         75 

had   properly   understood   and   believed  in   the 
powers  of  nullification.1 

The  opponents  of  nullification  asked  if  that 
system  of  checks  would  not  put  it  in  the  power 
of  any  one  state  to  force  the  government  to  call  a 
convention,  and  if  this  were  true  under  the  doc 
trine,  as  they  understood  it  to  be,  whence  was  the 
power  derived  ?  Did  not  the  Constitution  say 
that  two-thirds  of  the  states  were  required  to  call  a 
convention?  Yet  by  the  nullification  doctrine 
one  state  was  given  the  right  of  exercising  this 
important  power,  which  the  framers  of  the  Consti 
tution  were  unwilling  a  majority  of  the  states 
should  possess.  Was  not  this  an  open,  palpable, 
and  dangerous  infraction  of  the  federal  compact  ? 
Furthermore,  asked  the  Union  men,  where  was  the 
clause  of  the  Constitution  which  conferred  the 
power  of  construing  that  instrument  upon  three- 
fourths  of  the  states  ?  They  knew  very  well  that 
this  number  had  the  right  to  make  amendments 
to  the  federal  Constitution,  but  they  believed  that 

Professor  F.  M.  Anderson  in  "A  Forgotten  Phase  of  the  New 
England  Opposition  to  the  War  of  1812"  printed  in  the  Proceedings 
of  the  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Association,  Vol.  VI,  says  that, 
though  neither  the  word  "nullification"  nor  "secession"  was  used 
by  the  New  Englanders,  yet  practically  all  of  the  elements  of  those 
doctrines  as  later  championed  by  Calhoun  were  presented. 


76     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

there  was  a  great  difference  between  construing 
an  old  compact  and  making  a  new  one.1  Surely 
a  smaller  number  should  be  allowed  to  construe 
an  agreement  than  was  required  to  make  an 
entirely  new  one.  If  three-fourths  of  the  con 
tracting  parties  must  concur  in  every  construction 
of  their  compact,  would  it  not,  in  all  probability, 
remain  forever  a  dead  letter?  Would  it  ever 
be  construed  at  all?  Could  so  large  a  number 
agree  in  drawing  any  power  from  it  when  their 
interests  clashed  ? 

The  friends  of  nullification  might  say  what 
they  pleased,  but  the  exercise  of  this  veto  power 
by  the  states,  with  the  right  of  an  appeal  to  a 
federal  convention,  was  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  taking  all  power  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
majority  and  putting  it  into  those  of  the  minority. 
It  was  in  fact  the  establishment  of  an  aristocracy  of 
the  very  worst  kind.  The  majority,  indeed  almost 
three-fourths  of  the  people,  would  be  governed  by 
one-fourth.  If  this,  the  Union  men  felt,  were 
consistent  with  the  true  principles  of  a  republican 
government,  if  it  were  not  the  commencement 

'The  Eleventh  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  was  merely  a 
construing  of  the  old  compact,  an  interpretative  dictate  as  to  its 
construction. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         77 

of  a  vile  aristocracy,  which  must  end  in  anarchy, 
then  they  knew  nothing  about  the  nature  and 
theory  of  government.  If  the  majority  were 
unworthy  of  being  intrusted  with  power,  the 
minority  were  more  so,  and  consequently  they  had 
better  "petition  the  Almighty,  as  the  children  of 
Israel  did  in  olden  times,"  to  give  them  a  king,  who 
might  rule  them  in  peace  and  head  their  armies  in 
war. 

If  this  nullification  construction  of  the  Consti 
tution  should  ever  prevail  there  would  have  to  be 
a  federal  convention  in  constant  session,  and  the 
whole  country  would  remain  in  a  revolutionary 
state.  There  could  be  nothing  like  fixed  and 
settled  principles  of  government,  but  the  people 
would  have  to  be  always  making  new  constitutions 
and  destroying  old  ones  by  negative  votes. 
For  instance,  suppose  South  Carolina  declared  an 
act  of  Congress  void  and  it  went  to  a  convention 
of  the  states;  suppose  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of 
the  states  could  not  be  obtained  in  favor  of  the 
law;  there  would  be  the  end  of  it.  If  a  one- 
fourth  vote  could  be  obtained  against  a  law,  it 
would  be  void.  Thus  the  power  of  legislation 
as  well  as  that  of  making  and  construing  the 
Constitution  would  be  vested  in  no  less  a  number 


78     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

than  three-fourths  of  the  states.  If  this  ever 
came  to  pass,  the  Union  men  cared  not  how 
soon  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  might  follow, 
for  they  too  held  it  to  be  the  right  of  a  people  to 
revolutionize  their  government  when  evils  were 
insufferable. 

Some  of  the  Union  men  agreed  that  when  they 
could  be  made  to  perceive  any,  even  a  meta 
physical,  distinction  between  nullifying  a  statute 
of  the  United  States  and  absolute  rebellion,  they 
would  take  a  stand  that  moment  for  nullification, 
for  South  Carolina  had  suffered  under  an  unright 
eous  legislation  on  the  part  of  Congress  long 
enough  and  severely  enough  to  warrant  any  step 
on  her  part  short  of  severance  of  the  Union.  But, 
"with  all  proper  deference  to  others/'  they  looked 
upon  such  a  thing  as  constitutional  nullification 
as  "very  much  of  a  downright  absurdity."  That 
South  Carolina,  like  every  other  state  in  the  Union, 
had  a  "  perfect  right  to  resolve  herself  into  her 
original  elements,"  no  person  could  deny;  she 
had  the  right  at  any  moment  to  secede  from  the 
Union,  and  they  would  leave  the  question  open 
whether  the  oppressions  that  had  been  heaped 
upon  her  had  not  become  sufficiently  intolerable 
to  justify  her  in  such  a  step;  but  it  " sickened" 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         79 

them  to  hear  so  much  of  her  right  to  do  so  and 
still  remain  a  component  portion  of  the  confeder 
acy.  The  act  itself  was  revolution,  and  she  must 
either  conquer  or  be  conquered  by  the  Union; 
or  the  Union  must  peaceably  acquiesce  in  the 
separation,  and  the  state  must  become  an  inde 
pendent  and  disconnected  sovereignty. 

If  the  "good  people  of  South  Carolina"  had 
made  up  their  minds  that  the  time  had  arrived 
when  the  Union  was  in  point  of  fact  of  no  "  value  " ; 
that  actual  separation  and  war  were  preferable  to 
any  further  endurance  of  congressional  usurpation 
and  injustice ;  then  let  them  so  declare  themselves 
and  act  accordingly.  The  Union  men  pledged 
themselves  to  sink  or  swim  in  the  storm  with 
the  people  of  the  state,  but  they  insisted  that  the 
people  exercise  no  self-deception  about  it.  Let 
things  be  called  by  their  true  names  and  followed 
out  to  their  legitimate  consequences.  It  would 
be  worse  than  idle  to  argue  that  such  an  act  was 
anything  but  revolution.1 

1  This  summary  of  the  Union  position  is  taken  from  various  articles, 
communications,  and  editorials  in  the  Greenville  Mountaineer,  the 
Camden  Journal,  the  Charleston  Courier,  the  Charleston  Gazette,  and 
the  Charleston  Southern  Patriot.  Good  examples  of  these  may  be 
found  in  the  Journal,  July  3,  and  the  Mountaineer,  February  27  and 
April  3,  1830. 


80     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

At  the  same  time  that  such  sentiments  were 
expressed,  the  people  of  the  North  were  warned 
not  to  be  deceived  into  thinking  that  the  people 
of  the  South  and  of  South  Carolina  who  opposed 
the  tariff  were  but  a  paltry  few,  "a  desperate  and 
unprincipled  faction,  a  small  number  of  noisy 
and  restless  demagogues";  instead  of  a  faction, 
it  was  "the  whole  people  arrayed  against  federal 
usurpations."  One  Union  editor  believed  that 
there  were  not  150  individuals  in  South  Carolina, 
outside  of  Charleston,  who  did  not  deprecate  the 
tariff  system  as  unjust,  unequal,  and  oppressive.1 

The  Columbia  Times  editors  showed  themselves 
to  be  heartily  with  the  South,  but  at  the  same 
time  professed  to  love  and  venerate  the  Union, 
to  have  a  "holy,  all  but  superstitious  reverence" 
for  it,  and  to  believe  that  most  of  the  people  felt 
the  same  way.  They  asserted  that  South  Carolina 
did  not  aim  at  disunion;  yet  merely  to  arouse 
attention,  they  said,  they  believed  in  talking  about 
disunion,  and  opened  their  columns  to  writers  who 
tried  to  show  that  the  South  had  all  the  resources 
necessary  to  resist  invasion  by  the  North,  and 
to  support  a  government  when  separate.  The 
position  this  sheet  now  consistently  held  was 

1  Journal,  August  7,  1830. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         81 

that  though  disunion  was  not  desired,  the  people 
were  nevertheless  prepared  to  stick  to  their  prin 
ciples  even  to  that  end,  if  necessary;  the  talk 
about  disunion  was  to  be  used  only  to  show  that 
if  the  oppression  did  not  cease,  and  if  in  fact  it 
became  unbearable,  there  was  an  alternative, 
however  much  it  was  dreaded.1 

The  Charleston  Gazette  objected  in  toto  to  dis 
cussions  of  this  nature  as  idle,  mischievous,  and 
pregnant  with  the  most  fatal  consequences;  for, 
"when  men  desperate  in  fortune,  surveying  from 
a  precipice  with  indifferent  eyes  the  extended 
chasm  below  them,  begin  to  argue  with  themselves 
the  possibilities  of  surviving  a  leap  into  its  bosom, 
it  is  but  a  slight  transition  indeed  from  the  specu 
lation  to  the  actual  experiment."  This  editor  took 
an  interesting  fatalistic  view  of  the  South's  posi 
tion.  He  thought  the  tariff  oppressive,  uncon 
stitutionally  so,  and  held  that  the  practice  of 
the  government  was  oppressive  to  the  South 
in  many  particulars;  but  he  did  not  believe 
that  any  change  in  those  measures  then  supposed 
to  bear  directly  and  heavily  upon  the  South 
would  tend  very  greatly  to  its  relief.  The  evils 
of  the  condition  of  those  living  in  this  section  of 

1  Times,  January  29,  February  8,  March  i,  1830. 


82     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

the  country  arose  from  their  unequal  representa 
tion,  which  failed  to  present  to  the  rapacities  of 
others,  not  otherwise  restrained,  any  bulwark 
of  sufficient  importance  to  secure  them  a  proper 
consideration  and  the  equal  justice  due  them  in 
common  with  their  brethren,  North,  East,  and 
West.  Even  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  Union, 
standing  alone  among  the  distinct  and  divided 
sovereignties  of  the  land,  the  South  would  be 
worse  off,  less  secure,  a  prey  to  more  powerful 
neighbors.  The  South,  as  the  weaker  section,  was 
laboring  under  a  great  disadvantage,  but  inevita 
bly  so,  and  should  not  chance  a  worse  condition.1 
The  Pendleton  Messenger  at  this  time  took  no 
decided  stand,  but  presented  both  sides  of  the 
question.  Its  editor's  course  may  be  cited  as  an 
example  of  unusual  open-mindedness.  He  kept 
his  columns  open  neutrally,  and  himself  took  no 
decided  stand  until  he  became  thoroughly  con 
vinced  by  arguments  and  events.  In  1831  he 
became  a  vigorous  advocate  of  nullification.  This 
was  typical  of  the  course  of  many  individuals,  as 
the  toasts  at  Fourth  of  July  celebrations  showed.2 

1  Gazette,  June  16,  1830;    the  Pendleton  Messenger,  March  31, 
copied  an  article  from  the  Gazette. 

3  Messenger,  June  9,  July  7,  28,  1830. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         83 

The  Charleston  Courier  bristled  with  articles  and 
editorials  against  the  nullification  doctrine,  and 
the  Charleston  City  Gazette,  the  Charleston  Southern 
Patriot,  and  the  Camden  Journal  kept  up  an  inter 
mittent  fire  against  the  heresy.1 

Excitement  was  so  intense  that  prudence  could 
not  be  assured;  men  were  neglecting  their  business 
for  politics,  and  boys  were  being  reared  as  pro 
fessional  politicians.2  The  result  was  that  the 
press  articles  did  not  always  maintain  a  dignified 
tone  nor  rely  only  upon  sound  argument,  but 
recrimination  was  common  on  both  sides.  The 
advocates  of  nullification,  the  leaders  of  the 
"unholy  crusade/'  were  said  to  be  only  some  six 
or  seven  lawyers  and  one  associate  judge,  headed 
by  Dr.  Thomas  Cooper,  president  of  South 
Carolina  College.  The  author  of  the  statement 
to  this  effect  said  that  he  knew  not  a  solitary 
instance  of  a  planter,  merchant,  or  mechanic 
who  had  harangued  and  urged  the  people  on  to  dis 
union.  He  had  considered  the  leading  districts 

1  Typical  examples  are  found  in  the  Courier,  March  24, 31,  May  12, 
June  10,  21,  July  19,  August  16,  1830;  Gazette,  June  21,  July  7, 
September,  and  October;  Patriot,  June  28,  July  27,  September  8; 
Journal,  August  28,  July  3,  24. 

3  Joel  R.  Poinsett  Papers:  Joseph  Johnson  to  Poinsett,  July  17, 
1830.  Gazette,  April  7,  July  7. 


84     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

one  by  one,  and  had  concluded  that  in  each  case 
lawyers  were  the  stump  orators  of  the  Dis- 
unionists.1 

"Anti-Nullification"  wrote  in  May2  that  an 
almost  impassable  gulf  divided  the  matter-of-fact 
business  men  from  the  theoretical  speculators  on 
the  affairs  of  men — of  which  they  knew  little  or 
nothing — who  affected  a  pride,  with  a  flourish  of 
guns,  trumpets,  and  thunder,  in  ranking  them 
selves  under  the  destructive  banner  of  nullification. 
The  first,  the  matter-of-fact  men,  asserted,  with 
ample  means  to  prove  it,  that  business  in  Charles 
ton  had  rarely  been  more  vigorous  than  now.  The 
second,  the  "Nullificators,"  asserted,  without 
proof,  that  everything  was  "dead  or  dying,  and 
fast  mouldering  into  insignificance. "  The  writer 
said  he  had  just  returned  to  the  city  after  an 
absence  of  several  years  and  found  that  the 
matter-of-fact  men  were  nearer  the  truth.  But 
he  said  that  the  trade  of  the  city  could  be  made 
much  greater  if  its  citizens  were  to  take  pains  to 
develop  direct  trade  with  Europe.  What  the 
people  needed  was  to  think  more  of  improving 

1  "A  Native  of  Chesterfield  District,"  in  the  Courier,  September  7, 
1830.     Compare  with  above,  p.  55. 

2  Cotirier,  May  12,  1830. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         85 

trading  facilities  and  commercial  conditions  gener 
ally,  and  less  about  tariff  and  anti-tariff. 

Another  writer1  maintained  that  the  disciples 
of  disunion  were  generally  young  men,  particularly 
young  men  whose  families  had  once  been  wealthy 
but  had  been  reduced,  by  the  silent  but  power 
ful  effect  of  the  statute  on  the  equal  distribution 
of  estates,  to  the  alternative  of  active  industry 
or  positive  want. 

A  leading  Union  editor  said  that  the  howlings 
of  many  of  the  publications,  in  different  parts  of 
the  state,  about  the  American  system,  internal 
improvements,  tariff,  and  northern  manufactures 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  hoax,  trumped 
up  by  a  few  artful,  designing,  though  disappointed 
politicians,  who  were  willing  to  sacrifice  the 
interests  of  their  fellow-citizens  and  to  jeopardize 
the  state  for  the  sake  of  their  own  personal 
aggrandizement,  "to  gratify  an  unhallowed  ambi 
tion,  a  fiendish  lust  of  power."2  With  the  excep 
tion  of  John  C.  Calhoun  and  a  few  others,  the 
Nullifiers  did  rely  more  on  bombast  and  appeals 
to  the  emotions  than  upon  sound  reasoning. 
As  yet,  however,  Calhoun  had  no  prominent  place 
in  the  nullification  campaign. 

1  Courier,  March  24,  1830.  3  Courier,  October  12,  1830. 


86     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  use  of  harsh  words  was  not  confined  to  one 
side.  The  opponents  of  nullification  were  accused 
of  being  "Submission  men,"  ready  to  yield  any 
and  everything  to  the  central  government;  their 
party  was  tauntingly  referred  to  as  the  Submission 
party,  and  the  members  of  it  as  "cowards/7 
"recreants,"  "tories,"  "Yankee  party  of  Charles 
ton,"  "federalists,"  and  "hike- warm  politicians." 
They  were  said  to  be  "Clay  men,"  and  that 
was  about  the  worst  thing  that  could  be  said  of 
a  South  Carolinian.1  Some  editors  there  were 
who  were  more  magnanimous,  and,  though  they 
themselves  took  more  or  less  of  a  partisan  view, 
credited  both  sides  with  honest  motives.3 

For  a  time  the  Nullifiers  claimed  to  have  Presi 
dent  Jackson  on  their  side  in  this  discussion; 
but  after  the  Jefferson  celebration  in  Washington 
in  the  spring  of  1830,  when  he  gave  the  toast: 
"The  federal  Union — it  must  be  preserved," 
both  factions  boasted  of  his  support.  The  inter 
pretations  of  this  toast  varied  greatly,  with  the 
result  that  even  late  in  the  year  there  was  much 
uncertainty  as  to  just  where  he  stood.  To  this 

1  Courier,  August  25,  September  17,  October  9,   1830;    Moun 
taineer,  September  24;  Patriot,  July  27;  Journal,  August  7. 

2  Mountaineer,  July  16,  1830;  Messenger,  July  21. 


Nullification  Advocated  and  Denounced         87 

toast  the  Mercury  said  "Amen,"  observing  that 
there  was  but  one  way  to  preserve  the  Union,  and 
that  was  to  induce  the  majority  to  respect  the 
rights  and  feelings  of  the  minority;  or,  in  other 
words,  to  induce  the  North  and  East  to  repeal  or 
modify  the  "iniquitous  measures  by  which  the 
South"  was  "impoverished  and  enslaved."  That 
the  President  alluded  to  this  way  was  too  evident  to 
admit  of  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  said  the  Nullifiers, 
and  to  them  appeared  most  ridiculous  the  inter 
pretation  of  such  papers  as  the  National  Intelli 
gencer,  with  which  the  Courier  agreed,  that  in 
view  of  the  speeches  which  had  preceded  Jackson's 
toast  it  meant:  "You  may  complain  of  the  tariff, 
and  perhaps  with  reason;  but  so  long  as  it  is  the 
law,  it  shall  as  certainly  be  maintained  as  that 
my  name  is  Andrew  Jackson."  The  Mountaineer 
took  the  toast  as  a  plain  threat  that  any  hostile 
feeling  in  any  part  of  the  country  toward  the 
Union  must  and  should  be  put  down;  that  the 
Union  would  be  preserved  at  all  hazards.1 

1  Mercury,  April  24,  27,  1830;   Courier,  April  26;   Mountaineer, 
May  7. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  FIRST  TEST  OF  STRENGTH  (1830-31) 

At  various  times  early  in  1830  a  state  conven 
tion  had  been  suggested.  Its  advocates  gradually 
gained  in  number,  until  in  May  it  bade  fair  to 
become  the  main  issue.  A  number  of  Charleston 
citizens,  though  they  were  opposed  to  the  tariff, 
raised  an  objection  ,to  a  convention,  thereby 
evidencing  continued  disaffection  between  the 
upper  and  lower  sections  of  the  state;  for  the 
Charlestonians  feared  that  if  a  convention  were 
called  it  might  not  confine  itself  to  the  national 
issue,  but  might  change  the  legislative  representa 
tion  within  the  state  so  as  to  destroy  the  weight 
of  the  lower  country  in  the  legislature.1  This 
raised  the  question  whether  a  convention  could  be 
restricted  to  the  consideration  of  specific  subjects. 
To  this  was  soon  added  the  query  whether  a  con 
vention's  action  upon  federal  relations  could  be 
dictated,  or  whether  the  alternative  between  nulli 
fication  and  secession  must  be  left  to  its  discretion. 
It  was  replied  that  the  legislature  might,  in  the 

1  Mercury,  May  15,  1830. 

88 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  89 

resolution  calling  a  convention,  state  the  reasons 
why  a  convention  was  deemed  necessary,  but  that 
it  had  no  more  right  to  dictate  what  should  be 
done  than  it  had  to  declare  itself  the  master 
instead  of  the  servant  of  the  people.1 

By  July  4  the  issue  was  definitely  drawn,  and 
state-wide  parties  were  forming  for  and  against  a 
convention.  In  many  cases,  when  candidates 
for  the  legislature  were  announced,  their  position 
on  the  question  was  challenged  and  the  answers 
became  the  determining  factors  in  their  election.2 
As  an  example  of  the  extent  to  which  this  was 
true,  the  case  may  be  cited  in  Greenville  of  three 
early  candidates  who  indorsed  the  convention 
project.  But  soon  the  public  sentiment  in  the  dis 
trict  was  seen  to  be  so  preponderantly  hostile 
to  it  that  these  three  withdrew  from  the  race. 
They  were  men  high  in  public  esteem,  however, 
and  the  proposal  was  made  that  they  be  elected 
under  instructions  and  pledges  against  a  con 
vention.  But  the  candidates,  saying  that  they 

1  Mountaineer,  June  4,  1830;  Messenger,  September  8. 

2  Hammond  Papers:    L.  P.  Saxon  to  Hammond,  July  6,  1830; 
J.  H.  Irby  to  Hammond,  July  5;  T.  T.  Player  to  Hammond,  July  10; 
B.  M.  Pearson  to  Hammond,  July  13;  B.  F.  Whitner  to  Hammond, 
September  n.     Mercury,  July  17,  August  13,  September  24,  1830; 
Times,  August  9,  26;  Messenger,  August  18;  Mountaineer,  May  21. 


90     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

would  be  embarrassed  by  such  election  under  the 
existing  circumstances,  declined  the  honor.1 

In  some  places,  however,  the  line  of  division 
was  simply  between  Unionism  and  Nullification, 
apparently  with  the  tacit  understanding  that 
all  Unionists  would  oppose  and  all  Nullifiers  sup 
port  a  convention;  but  as  the  campaign  pro 
gressed,  the  convention  issue  became  confused 
in  many  parts  of  the  state  and  did  not  mark 
a  clear  line  of  division  between  the  two  parties. 
Politics  became  the  great  business  of  life  in  many 
sections ;  the  excitement  was  so  great  that  not  only 
the  candidates,  but  many  of  the  active  partisans 
on  both  sides,  spent  their  whole  time  in  election 
eering.2 

The  greatest  obstacle  the  advocates  of  a  con 
vention  had  to  overcome  was  the  apprehension 

1  Times,  August    16,    1830;    Mountaineer,   August   6.     In   this 
same  district  the  adherents  of  the  "Non-Convention  party"  soon 
began  to  feel  their  power  and  to  glory  in  it.     They  began  to  talk  of 
running  a  man  for  Congress  in  opposition  to  Warren  R.  Davis, 
because  he  had  spoken  for  a  convention.     The  Mountaineer  tried  to 
discourage  this  because  it  would  be  an  unjust  merger  of  two  distinct 
matters;    the  delegate  to  Congress  could  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question  of  a  state  convention.     Davis  had  been  a  very  able  and 
fearless  supporter  of  true  southern  policy  in  Congress,  and  to  throw 
him  out  would  be  foolish. 

2  Hammond  Papers:  D.  L.  Wardlaw  to  Hammond,  July  24,  1830. 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  91 

that  disunion,  civil  war,  and  bloodshed  must  be 
the  consequences  of  their  proposal.  The  con 
vention  advocates  endeavored  in  diverse  ways  to 
overcome  this.  Some  stressed  the  hopelessness 
of  reliance  upon  Jackson  for  redress;  some  pointed 
to  the  folly  of  further  patience  and  forbearance; 
some  explained  away  the  prospect  of  strife,  simply 
in  order  to  win  convention  supporters,  while  others 
honestly  believed  that  a  convention  would  adopt 
only  peaceable  measures;  others,  after  belittling 
the  fears  as  to  the  outcome  of  a  conflict,  delivered 
outright  "war"  toasts  and  speeches.1  In  many 
places  the  Conventionists  asserted  that  their 
candidates  would  favor  not  only  a  convention, 
but  with  it  "strong  measures."2 

1  Hammond  Papers:   T.  T.  Player  to  Hammond,  July  10,  1830. 
Times,  August  26,  September  9;   Messenger,  August  18;   Mountain 
eer,  August  13,  in  a  letter  by  W.  R.  Davis. 

2  Hammond  Papers:  B.  M.  Pearson  to  Hammond,  July  13,  1830. 
This  campaign  of  education  carried  on  by  the  convention  advocates 
and  the  fears  they  had  to  overcome  are  clearly  shown  by  a  letter 
from  Benjamin  F.  Whitner  to  Hammond,  telling  of  the  condition 
in  Chester  (Hammond  Papers:  Whitner  to  Hammond,  September  n, 
1830).     Whitner  said  in  part:    ".  .  .  .  I  have  had  repeated  con 
versations  with  many  of  the  plain  but  intelligent  farmers  with  whom 
business  has  brought  me  in  contact,  and  I  find  the  apprehension  uni 
versal  that  the  friends  of  convention  do  not  propose  it  as  a  peaceful 
remedy.     But  in  every  instance  where  I  had  an  opportunity  to 
explain  and  illustrate  the  right  of  the  state  to  this   exercise   of 


9  2     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

On  September  20,  a  so-called  State  Rights 
meeting,  promoted  by  the  convention  advocates, 
was  held  at  Columbia.  Though  largely  composed 
of  men  from  the  immediate  vicinity,  it  was  to 
some  extent  a  general  convention  of  the  interior. 
Many  prominent  men  spoke  and  many  others 
sent  letters.  The  great  majority  of  these  not 
only  favored  a  convention,  but  openly  declared 
for  state  action,  immediate  and  decisive,  though 
Judge  Langdon  Cheves  demanded  instead  a 

sovereignty — to  distinguish  between  the  constitutional  resistance  of 
the  people  to  an  unconstitutional  law  and  their  rebellion  against  an 
oppressive  law,  but  one  which  Congress  have  the  right  to  pass — I 
have  found  the  people  in  favor  of  convention.  They  can  scarcely 
believe  that  so  much  clamor  could  be  raised  against  convention 
if  by  it  the  people  are  only  to  do  in  an  aggregate  capacity  what  they 
all  do  now  individually — that  is,  assert  the  law  to  be  unconstitutional 
and  endeavor  to  devise  the  best  mode  of  ridding  themselves  of  it. 
And  although  I  think  it  extremely  doubtful  whether  the  question  of 
convention  will  be  carried,  I  have  not  the  least  question  that  but  for 
the  false  alarm  that  has  been  so  industriously  excited  through  the 
country,  the  general  voice  would  call  for  it  almost  unanimously. 

"I  am  glad  to  hear  a  great  many  of  the  yeomanry  speak  of 
attending  the  meeting  in  Columbia  on  the  2oth.  [Referred  to  below.] 
And  I  do  hope  that  those  who  may  figure  as  public  speakers  on  that 
occasion  may  be  conciliating  and  plain,  stir  up  no  angry  passions,  nor 
excite  prejudice  and  ill  will  by  aspersing  the  motives  and  questioning 
the  patriotism  of  those  who  differ  with  them  [and]  who  are  timid 
and  slow  to  adopt  any  course  that  may  unnecessarily  jeopardize  the 
peace  and  union  of  the  states.  From  such  a  meeting,  so  conducted, 
great  good  may  yet  result  even  in  time  for  the  approaching  elections. 
God  grant  it  may." 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  93 

program  of  co-operation  with  the  rest  of  the 
South — a  program  which  twenty  years  later 
became  the  platform  of  the  controlling  party  in 
the  state.  Judge  J.  P.  Richardson  also  spoke 
strongly  against  nullification,  but  Robert  Barn  well 
Smith,  who  changed  his  name  later  to  Robert 
Barnwell  Rhett,  declared  for  resistance  regardless 
of  any  stigma  which  might  be  put  upon  its 
advocacy.  Chancellor  William  Harper  offered 
a  resolution,  adopted  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
two  or  three  thousand  present,  calling  for  a  state 
convention.  But  the  reports  of  the  speeches 
and  letters  indicate  strongly  that  many  who  were 
willing  that  a  convention  be  called  were  opposed 
to  nullification.1 

This  Columbia  meeting  was  taken  as  a  strong 
expression  from  the  interior  that  a  convention 
would  be  demanded  and  carried  through,  even 
though  Charleston  were  against  it,  as  it  then 
seemed  to  be.2  But  it  was  evident  at  this  time, 
and  became  more  so  as  the  campaign  progressed, 
that  there  was  no  agreement  among  the  Con- 
ventionists  as  to  when  the  convention  should  meet 
or  what  it  should  do.  Some  favored  its  prompt 

1  Mercury,  September  24, 1830;  Times,  September  23,  October  10. 
*  Mercury,  September  24,  1830;    Times,  September  2. 


94     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

assemblage.  Others,  with  Chancellor  Harper, 
thought  that  since  such  a  course  would  seem  too 
much  like  a  threat,  the  convention  should  meet 
after  the  next  session  of  Congress,  that  is  to  say, 
in  April  or  May.  He  thought  the  postponement 
would  have  a  good  effect  on  Congress.  As  to  its 
purpose,  while  some  thought  that  the  calling  of  a 
convention  for  any  other  object  than  that  of 
nullification  was  idle,  others  believed  that  it 
should  initiate  measures  for  co-operation  of  some 
sort  with  the  sister  states,  and  should  by  no  means 
resort  to  nullification.1  Among  the  convention 
supporters  there  came  to  be  quite  a  number  of 
Union  men  who  thought  that  a  convention  might 
be  beneficial  in  showing  the  North  that  the 
opposition  was  not  a  mere  factious  one,  and  that 
it  could  protest  against  the  tariff  more  effectively 
than  could  the  legislature,  even  though  its  only 
weapon  should  be  the  same — resolutions.2 

The  Anti-Conventionists  were  not  idle.  One 
of  their  leading  spokesmen  maintained  that  if  a 
convention  were  called,  it  would  be  for  the  pur 
pose  of  nullifying  an  act  of  Congress,  widen  must 
either  result  in  disunion  or  render  the  federal 

1  Patriot,  October  13,  1830;  Journal,  December  14. 

2  Mountaineer,  September  3,  1830;   Journal,  August  28. 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  95 

government  unworthy  of  preservation.  The 
people  should  know  this  and  determine  for  them 
selves.  If,  knowing  it,  they  declared  for  a  con 
vention,  then  every  citizen  should  abide  by  the 
decision  and  support  its  policy  to  the  end.  But 
he  believed  that  it  was  too  soon  to  act;  South 
Carolina  should  wait  for  the  return  of  good  sense 
to  the  American  people,  which  must  come  soon.1 
If,  however,  the  state  were  resolved  to  act,  it 
should  do  so  openly  and  boldly,  without  any 
attempt  to  shield  itself  behind  metaphysical 
constructions  of  the  Constitution.2 

It  goes  without  saying  that  all  supporters  of  the 
tariff  in  South  Carolina  were  against  a  convention. 

1  Mountaineer,  May  21,  November  12,  1830;   Courier,  November 
12.     Judge  William  Smith  was  another  holding  this  view — against 
a  convention  because  the  tariff  and  internal  improvement  systems 
were  fast  crumbling  away  and  would  soon  be  demolished. 

2  The  editor  of  the  Camden  Journal  claimed  just  before  the  elec 
tion  that  the  Convention  party  would  not  number  more  than  fifty 
out  of  800  voters  in  the  district  and  that  there  were  not  ten  in  the 
town.     "But,"  he  added,  "there  is  not  one  'submission'  man"  in  the 
district.     The  editor  of   the  Columbia   Times  and  Gazette  asked: 
"If  you  are  opposed  to  a  convention  and  yet  not  for  giving  up, 
pray  what  remedy  do  you  propose  ?  "     The  Journal  editor  answered 
that  he  was  for  resistance  in  every  constitutional  way,  by  the  use 
of  moral  force,  of  reason  and  argument,  to  the  point  where  shown 
useless,  and  then  for  a  convention  to  withdraw  from  the  confederacy. 
The  Times  editor  then  answered  that  if  the  Journal  editor  could  show 
that  nullification  would  produce  disunion  or  civil  war,  the  Times 
would  abandon  the  doctrine  at  once  (Times,  October  n,  21,  25, 1830). 


96     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  most  formidable  group  of  all  these  was  in 
Charleston,  but  there  were  a  few  scattered  through 
the  interior  of  the  state,  some  of  whom  were  new 
comers  from  the  North  and  were  not  allowed 
to  forget  it.  Some  were  shopkeepers  who  were 
said  by  their  critics  to  have  been  "misled  by 
the  artful  sophistry  about  prices  which  the 
Yankee  wholesale  dealers  in  Charleston  and  else 
where"  were  always  passing  along  with  their 
commodities;  and  a  few  were  substantial  farmers 
who  had  "  taken  Niles'  Register  until  their  facul 
ties"  were  "all  bewildered."1 

But  by  far  the  greater  number  of  those  opposed 
to  a  convention  were  men  who  hated  the  tariff 
but  loved  the  Union  and  South  Carolina  enough 
to  wish  to  avoid  any  measure  which  might  en 
danger  either.  They  believed  that  if  a  conven 
tion  were  called,  it  must,  as  Judge  William  Harper 
said,  if  it  acted  at  all,  nullify  the  laws  of  Con 
gress;  they  quoted  Colonel  William  Dray  ton  to 
the  effect  that  nullification  meant  disunion,  and 
Langdon  Cheves's  opinion  that  a  convention  must 
assume  "revolutionary  vigor."  All  this,  they 
said,  meant  that  South  Carolina  was  to  revolt 
alone  against  the  United  States;  this  would  be 

1  Hammond  Papers:  D.  L.  Wardlaw  to  Hammond,  July  24,  1830. 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  97 

treason  and  would  be  treated  as  such.  Further 
more,  if  the  Union  were  saved  in  spite  of  South 
Carolina's  folly,  as  would  probably  be  the  case, 
the  state  would  suffer.  Nullification  undertaken 
by  South  Carolina  would  result  as  the  revocation 
of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  had  done  in  France — it 
would  cause  the  emigration  of  a  large  part  of  all 
classes  of  the  population.1  Some  there  were,  too, 
who  took  sides  merely  from  the  habit  of  opposi 
tion  to  rivals  who  now  happened  to  have  declared 
themselves  on  the  other  side. 

The  man  who  was  looked  upon  as  the  logical 
organizer  of  the  Union  or  Anti- Convention  party 
was  Joel  R.  Poinsett.  He  had  just  returned  from  a 
mission  to  Mexico  and  was  finishing  his  business 
in  Washington  and  Philadelphia  in  July,  when  he 
was  urged  to  return  to  South  Carolina  to  help  the 
Unionists,  whose  cause  needed  careful  and  judi 
cious  management.2  When  Poinsett  arrived  in 
Columbia  he  found  there  some  old  and  valued 
friends,  who,  though  opposed  to  the  nullification 
doctrine,  regarded  opposition  as  hopeless  against 
such  an  array  as  had  declared  themselves  for 
nullification;  and  he  found  the  same  views 

1  Courier,  September  21,  October  8,  1830. 

2  Poinsett  Papers:  Joseph  Johnson  to  Poinsett,  July  17,  1830. 


gS     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

among  the  Unionists  in  Charleston.  But  after 
frequent  conferences,  Daniel  E.  Huger,  James  L. 
Petigru,  James  R.  Pringle,  Joseph  Johnson,  and 
others,  as  well  as  Poinsett,  resolved  at  all  hazards 
to  organize  an  opposition  to  the  schemes  which  to 
their  minds  promised  ruinous  consequences.1 
The  work  of  organization  was  also  materially  pro 
moted  by  Colonel  William  Drayton.2  The  Union 
party  organization  did  not  become  effective, 
however,  until  their  opponents  had  long  been  at 
work,  and  at  no  time  did  they  feel  confident  of 
victory.  Many,  indeed,  felt  that  the  nullification 
disaffection  had  gained  such  a  start  that  it  would 
sweep  over  the  state  like  an  epidemic,  a  "terrible 
fever.573  These  were  happily  surprised  at  the 
results  of  the  elections  in  October. 

In  Charleston  the  city  election  came  the  first 
week  in  September,  and  served  as  a  preliminary 
test  of  strength;  for  although  this  question  of 
state  policy  had  no  actual  bearing  upon  the 
functions  of  city  officers,  it  was  made  the  issue  of 
the  campaign.  There  were  to  be  chosen  an  in- 
tendant  (mayor)  and  twelve  wardens  (aldermen). 

1  Poinsett  Papers:   Poinsett  to  Jackson,  October  23,  1830. 

2  Poinsett  Papers:  Drayton  to  Poinsett,  December  20, 1830,  shows 
the  extreme  prejudices  against  which  the  Union  party  had  to  work. 

3  Mountaineer,  September  3,  1830. 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  99 

Henry  L.  Pinckney  headed  the  ticket  of  the 
State  Rights  and  Jackson  party,  as  the  Nulli- 
fiers  called  themselves.  In  its  declaration  of 
principles  their  organization  denied  the  disunion 
charge,  and,  though  not  specific  as  to  a  program, 
asserted  that  the  Union  and  the  Constitution 
would  be  safe.1  The  opposing  ticket  was  headed 
by  James  R.  Pringle.  The  men  of  this  party 
also  claimed  to  be  a  Jackson  party,  and  called 
themselves  the  State  Rights  and  Union  party. 
They  were  for  state  sovereignty  as  they  inter 
preted  it,  but  opposed  to  the  calling  of  a  con 
vention,  nullification,  and  to  disunion. 

While  the  election  was  close,  the  entire  Union 
ticket  was  elected.  Although  the  Union  party 
had  been  referred  to  by  their  opponents  as  the 
"regular  Adams  and  Clay  and  Tariff"  party,  they 
pointed  out  after  the  election  that  the  result  must 
not  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  Charleston  was 
any  more  disposed  than  she  ever  had  been  to 
tolerate  the  " Protecting  System."  The  result  at 
the  polls  was  interpreted  as  merely  an  expression 
of  the  majority  in  the  city  against  a  convention.2 

1  Mercury,  August  30,  1830. 

2  Gazette,  September  7,   1830;    Patriot,  September   7;    Courier, 
September  7. 


ioo    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  State  Rights  party  immediately  held  a 
rally  in  the  form  of  a  subscription  supper  with  a 
business  meeting  added.  Some  six  or  seven 
hundred  were  present.  This  meeting  adopted  an 
address  to  the  people  to  explain  the  defeat  of  the 
party.  It  was  due  in  large  part,  they  said,  to  what 
they  called  the  false  charge  that  they  would 
involve  the  state  in  war,  which  had  turned  the 
bankers  and  merchants  against  them.  They 
declared  that  they  would  not  give  up,  but  had 
just  begun  to  fight;  and  they  were  confident  that 
the  state  could  be  carried  for  the  convention  even 
without  St.  Philip's  and  St.  Michael's.1 

The  election  for  state  representatives  and 
senators  came  on  October  n  and  12.  The  Union 
party  had  come  out  openly  against  a  convention, 
but  even  up  to  the  time  of  the  election  the  ad 
herents  of  the  State  Rights  party  in  Charleston, 
or  at  least  their  paper,  the  Mercury,  had  not  openly 
declared  for  a  convention.  Their  policy,  softened 
by  their  recent  defeat,  was,  as  the  Courier  put  it, 
to  leave  "their  flag  white,  to  be  painted  by  the 
Columbia  artists."  By  this  concealment  of  their 
motives  they  hoped  to  gain  votes,  and  they  per 
suaded  three  of  the  Union  party's  nominees  to  let 

1  Mercury,  September  n,  24,  1830;   Times,  September  2,  16. 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  101 

their  names  be  placed  also  on  the  State  Rights 
ticket.1 

There  was  to  be  elected  at  this  time  also  a 
member  of  Congress  from  the  Charleston  district. 
William  Drayton,  the  candidate  of  the  Union 
party,  was  unopposed.  A  writer  in  the  Courier 
remarked  upon  the  humor  of  the  situation  which 
forced  the  Mercury  and  its  followers  to  make  the 
best  of  Colonel  Dray  ton 's  candidacy,  and  to 
pretend  to  honor  and  admire  him,  when  in  reality 
they  honored  him  as  much  as  Shy  lock  did  Portia.2 

The .  candidates  for  the  state  Senate  were 
Richard  Cunningham  on  the  State  Rights  ticket 
and  James  L.  Petigru  in  opposition.  The  former 
was  elected  by  the  small  majority  of  twenty-five. 
The  State  Rights  party  tried  to  make  much  of  this, 
but  its  opponents  pointed  out  that  Cunningham 
could  not  have  been  elected  over  Petigru  if  he  had 
not  assured  his  supporters  that  he  was  against  nulli 
fication  and  a  convention.  Perhaps  they  hoped 
to  be  able  to  change  his  position  after  electing  him.3 

1  Courier,  October  1,2,  1830;  Journal,  October  23. 

3  Courier,  October  2,  9,  1830. 

3  The  vote  stood  1,268  to  1,243.  Mercury,  October  15,  1830; 
Courier,  October  16.  Poinsett  Papers:  a  letter  with  this  notation 
upon  it:  "Confidential — copy  of  a  letter  from  a  Gentleman  dated 
Charleston,  October  15,  1830." 


102     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Of  the  sixteen  state  representatives  elected  in 
Charleston,  eleven  were  Union  men  and  five 
were  State  Rights  men,  though  three  of  the 
former  were  also  on  the  State  Rights  ticket. 
Of  the  five  State  Rights  men  elected,  only  three 
were  said  to  be  Nullifiers.  Taking  the  average  of 
the  Union  candidates,  the  vote  was  1,261,  and  for 
the  State  Rights  candidates,  1,245.  The  excite 
ment  over  the  election  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
a  much  greater  vote  was  polled  than  at  any 
other  election  which  had  ever  been  held  in 
Charleston.1 

As  returns  came  in  from  the  rest  of  the  state, 
the  papers  published  such  conflicting  statements 
of  the  probable  stand  the  members-elect  would 
take  on  the  convention  question,  that  the  Camden 
Journal  rightly  concluded,  after  having  con 
templated  publishing  an  analysis  of  its  own,  that 
it  was  impossible  even  to  approach  accuracy. 

1  Mercury,  October  15,  1830;  Gazette,  October  15;  Courier, 
October  14,  15.  The  vote  polled  in  various  preceding  years  was  as 
follows:  1812,  1,942;  1814,  2,003;  l8l6>  1,812;  1818,  1,991;  1820, 
2,125;  1822,  2,020;  1824,  2,061;  1826,  2,089;  l828>  2,067;  1830, 
2,575.  Before  the  legislative  session  closed  a  new  member  had  to 
be  elected  from  Charleston  to  fill  the  place  left  by  Hugh  S.  Legare, 
who  became  Attorney-General.  At  this  extra  election  Petigru  was 
elected  over  Laurens,  a  State  Rights  man,  by  1,266  to  1,041  (Mercury, 
December  16;  Courier,  December  20). 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  103 

The  only  true  list,  it  said,  would  come  with  the 
record  of  a  definite  vote  in  the  legislature.1 
Although  in  midsummer  the  issue  in  regard  to  the 
calling  of  a  convention  seemed  in  most  sections  to 
be  clearly  drawn  between  the  Nullifiers  and  the 
Unionists,  as  the  campaign  progressed  the  sup 
porters  and  opposers  of  a  convention  did  not 
divide  uniformly  along  the  Union  party  and 
State  Rights  party  lines. 

When  the  legislature  assembled,  the  two  parties, 
after  some  preliminary  skirmishing  over  the  elec 
tion  of  speaker  and  governor,  devoted  themselves 
to  a  general  debate  upon  the  convention  project 
and  the  nullification  doctrine.2  The  personal 
alignment  upon  the  two  issues  was  not  identical, 
for  while  some  Conventionists  were  not  Nullifiers, 
some  Nullifiers  desired  a  different  mode  of  pro 
cedure  than  a  state  convention.  The  concrete 
question  voted  upon,  however,  was  that  of  ordering 

1  Times,    November    u,    1830;     Mountaineer,    November    19; 
Journal,  November  20. 

2  The  State  Rights  party  soon  elected  Henry  L.  Pinckney  to  be 
speaker  of  the  House,  63  to  31,  and  later  elected  James  Hamilton,  Jr., 
governor,  over  Richard  I.  Manning,  93  to  67  (joint  ballot).     Clearly 
they  had  a  majority,  but  the  necessary  two-thirds  was  doubtful 
(Messenger,   December    i,    1830;     Courier,   December    13;     Times, 
December  10,  23). 


104    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

a  convention.1  When  the  ballots  were  taken 
the  results  were:  in  the  Senate,  23  for  and  18 
against  a  convention;  in  the  House,  60  for  and  56 
against.2  The  Convention  party  thus  had  a 
majority  but  not  the  constitutional  two-thirds. 
Its  cause  was  for  this  time  defeated.  The  Conven- 
tionists  solaced  themselves,  however,  by  carrying 
through  a  set  of  resolutions. 

The  first  three  proclaimed  the  state's  intention 
to  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  her  attachment  to  the  Union;  they  asserted 
that  the  power  of  the  federal  government  was 
limited  by  the  " plain  sense  and  intention"  of  the 
Constitution,  and  that  in  case  of  "deliberate  and 
palpable  and  dangerous  exercise  of  powers  not 
granted  in  the  Constitution"  the  states  were  "in 
duty  bound  to  interpose,  to  arrest  the  evil"; 
these  resolutions  were  approved  unanimously.3 
Thereupon  Daniel  E.  Huger  moved  a  resolution 

1  Courier,  December  15,  1830.  Chief  among  those  who  spoke 
for  a  convention  were  W.  R.  Hill,  William  C.  Preston,  Thomas 
English,  A.  P.  Butler,  Henry  L.  Pinckney,  T.  T.  Player,  B.  F.  Dunkin, 
F.  W.  Pickens,  and  Alfred  Huger.  Those  who  opposed  it  were  D.  E. 
Huger,  J.  P.  Richardson,  J.  J.  Presley,  William  McWillie,  and 
Thomas  Williams. 

3  Mountaineer,  December  24,  1830;  Courier,  December  20; 
Mercury,  December  22. 

3  Messenger,  December  29,  1830. 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  105 

that  the  legislature  did  not  recognize  as  con 
stitutional  the  right  of  an  individual  state  to 
nullify  or  arrest  a  law  passed  by  Congress,  but 
this  was  rejected  by  a  large  majority. 

The  fourth  resolution  asserted  that  the  general 
government  was  not  one  of  unlimited  powers  to 
which  the  states  must  submit,  but  one  of  special 
powers  delegated  by  the  states;  that  all  other  pow 
ers  were  reserved  to  the  states,  and  that  any  exer 
cise  of  undelegated  powers  was  unconstitutional; 
that  the  general  government  was  not  judge  of  its 
powers,  but  that  "each  party"  to  the  compact  had 
an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself  "as  well  of  infrac 
tions  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress." 
This  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  93  to  31.  The  fifth 
resolution  declared  that  the  general  government 
had  shown  a  tendency  to  expand  some  of  its 
powers  to  a  degree  destructive  of  the  republican 
system  and  creative  of  an  unlimited  and  abso 
lute  government;  and  this  was  carried  by  a  vote 
of  103  to  9.  The  sixth  asserted  that  the  tariff 
acts  were  violations  of  the  compact,  and  that 
a  state,  whenever  other  hope  of  redress  was 
gone,  might  properly  "interpose  in  its  sover 
eign  capacity,  for  the  purpose  of  arresting 
the  progress  of  the  evil  occasioned  by  the  said 


io6    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

unconstitutional  acts."  This  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  90  to  24. 

The  fourth  and  sixth  resolutions  were  the  ones 
in  which  the  State  Rights  men  took  greatest 
comfort.1  Although  they  were  not  able  to  get  a 
convention,  they  had  persuaded  the  legislature 
to  assert  in  formal  resolutions  what  they  claimed 
to  be  the  doctrine  of  nullification.  This  was  at 
least  a  positive  step  in  advance  of  the  legislative 
proceedings  of  1828. 

The  Union  men  now  insisted  that  their  victory 
did  not  mean  that  submission  was  to  be  the  pro 
gram  of  the  state.  They  rejoiced  that  the  crude, 
half-way  measure  of  a  convention  had  failed,  and 
with  it  an  attempt  at  nullification,  which  its  origi 
nators  had  endeavored  to  present  in  such  a  way  as 
to  avoid  the  responsibilities  which  might  logically 
be  expected  to  result  from  its  adoption.  The 
Union  men  now  professed  themselves  ready  to 
adopt  any  plan  by  which  the  South  might  be 
relieved,  in  a  way  constitutional  and  expedient, 
from  all  or  any  of  the  burdens  which  it  was  thought 
she  bore.  They  had  simply  shown  that  they 
would  not  be  driven  by  excitement  to  embark 
upon  unknown  seas,  under  the  command  of  Turn- 

1  Times,  December  17,  23,  1830;  Messenger,  January  5,  1831. 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  107 

bulls,    Coopers,    and    other    "demagogues    and 
agitators."1 

Plots  of  the  votes  in  the  legislature  on  the  con 
vention  question,  especially  that  of  the  Senate, 
show  that  most  of  the  votes  against  the  con 
vention  project  came  from  the  upper  districts  and 
from  a  few  of  the  parishes  near  Charleston.2 
The  interior  districts  which  were  opposed  were 
in  most  cases  those  where  the  slave  population 
had  not  yet  reached  50  per  cent  of  the  total 
population.3 

1  Gazette,  December  30,  1830.  3  See  Maps  II"  and  III. 

3  In  looking  over  a  series  of  maps  (of  which  those  printed  in  this 
volume  are  but  a  fraction)  showing  the  geographical  location  of  the 
centers  of  support  of  the  two  parties,  one  notices  that  the  northern 
counties  tended  to  vote  consistently  with  the  Union  party,  and  that 
in  general  those  counties  which  opposed  the  things  for  which  the 
State  Rights  party  stood  were  those  in  which  the  introduction  of  the 
institution  of  slavery  had  made  least  progress. 

The  negro  population  had  reached  50  per  cent  of  the  total  popu 
lation  in  Beaufort,  Colleton,  Charleston,  Williamsburg,  and  George 
town  by  1790;  in  Sumter  and  Richland  by  1800;  in  Orangeburg  and 
Kershaw  by  1810;  in  Marlboro  by  1820;  in  Darlington,  Fairfield, 
and  Newberry  by  1830;  in  Barnwell,  Edgefield,  and  Abbeville  by 
1840;  in  Chester,  Union,  and  Laurens  by  1850;  it  had  not  reached 
50  per  cent  in  Horry,  Marion,  Chesterfield,  Lancaster,  York,  Spar- 
tanburg,  Greenville,  Pendleton,  and  Lexington  by  1850. 

In  the  maps  published  in  this  volume  the  districts  indicated  by 
dots  were  those  in  which  a  majority  of  the  people  opposed  the  Nulli- 
fiers,  while  the  districts  indicated  by  straight  lines  were  those  in 
which  a  majority  voted  with  the  Nullifiers. 


io8    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  net  result  of  the  contest  in  the  legislature 
was  that  the  State  Rights  party  was  obliged  to 
bide  its  time  once  more.1  During  the  early 
months  of  1831  the  papers  simply  watched  Con 
gress  and  exploited  any  indications  of  a  hostility 


MAP  II. — Senate  vote  on  state  convention,  1830 

to  tariff  reduction.  They  discussed  nullification 
or  convention  hardly  at  all,  but  seemed  to  think  it 
necessary  to  go  back  to  a  more  primary  step  in  the 
educatoin  of  the  people  and  go  over  again  all  the 
old  arguments  against  the  tariff.  They  urged 

1  Hammond  Papers:  J.  Hamilton  to  Hammond,  February  5, 1831, 


The  First  Test  of  Strength 


109 


state  action  occasionally,  when  they  believed  they 
could  point  to  something  of  striking  value  to  show 
the  folly  of  expecting  anything  from  Congress. 
Early  in  the  session  a  letter  from  a  South  Caro 
lina  congressman1  was  published  to  prove  that  the 


House  vole  on   the  convention 
i«su«,  1830  (Courier,  ftmm 

»,  l8|0|  Mercury,  DcMlubc 
1,,  1830)! 


^^  [or  a  convention,  60 
[^1  "gainst  a  convention,  56 
t-:';'..''!|  nearly  evenly  divided 
r~~l  not  voting 


MAP  III. — House  vote  on  state  convention,  1830 

tariff  supporters  were  "feeling  power  and  for 
getting  right."  Resolutions  to  inquire  into  the  ex 
pediency  of  reducing  various  duties  were  rejected 
by  large  votes.  This  was  especially  galling 

1  Mercury,  January  21,  1831;  letter  by  Warren  R.  Davis,  Decem 
ber  13,  1830. 


no    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

because  the  resolutions  were  merely  for  inquiry, 
and  ordinarily  such  resolutions  were  never  refused 
unless  the  subject-matter  was  offensive  to  the 
House.  This  was  taken  to  show  that  Congress 
intended  that  the  protective  policy  should  be  the 
settled  policy  of  the  country  and  no  longer  open 
to  discussion.  Surely,  it  was  argued,  this  should 
be  lesson  enough  for  even  that  class  in  the  com 
munity  who  were  for  hoping,  believing,  bearing, 
and  forbearing  as  long  as  any  hope  remained.1 

A  little  later,  when  Congress  did  discuss  the 
tariff,  and  Mallory's  report  was  published,  it  was 
referred  to  by  the  State  Rights  party  as  an  avowal 
by  the  very  leader  of  the  tariff  party  that  pro 
tection  was  the  primary  object  of  the  law;  that 
the  manufacturers  would  continue  to  make  com 
mon  cause  in  support  of  the  system ;  that  the  sepa 
rate  items  of  the  tariff  would  no  longer  be  examined 
singly,  because  the  system,  as  some  South  Caro 
lina  statesmen  had  hoped,  might  be  destroyed 
that  way.  Two  representatives  of  South  Carolina, 
James  Blair  and  William  T.  Nuckolls,  who  had 
been  opposed  to  a  convention  because  they  had 
thought  the  tariff  could  be  reduced  piecemeal, 

1  Mercury,  January  22,  1831;  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  VII, 
pp.  359  and  449- 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  in 

were  now  said  to  be  admitting  that  they  had 
deceived  themselves  and  the  people.1 

As  the  session  of  Congress  progressed,  every 
thing  available  was  seized  upon  by  the  Nullifiers 
to  show,  directly  and  by  implication,  that  those 
who  had  argued  that  a  convention  was  premature 
and  useless  had  been  in  the  wrong.  Then  in  May 
the  party  speakers  at  public  dinners  and  barbe 
cues  began  to  come  out  more  openly  again  and  to 
urge  a  speedy  application  of  the  Carolina  doc 
trines  as  the  only  means  of  relief.2 

In  the  early  summer  the  State  Rights  papers 
began  to  chide  the  Anti-convention  papers  for  not 
publishing  an  amount  of  anti-tariff  material 
sufficient  to  prove  that  they  were  true  South  Caro 
linians.3  It  was  charged  that  in  combating  the 
nullification  doctrine  they  were  allowing  them 
selves  to  be  carried  off  into  the  incidental,  if  not 
open,  support  of  those  very  measures  against 
which  they  had  formerly  fought.  To  this  the 
Anti-convention  papers  answered  that  there  was 
no  need  of  continuing  to  print  anti-tariff  doctrines 

1  Mercury,  February  5,  17,  1831. 

2  Mercury,  March  12,  April  13,  May  20, 1831;  Messenger,  April  13. 

3  The  Banner  of  the  Constitution,  published  in  Philadelphia  by 
Raguet,  was  recommended  as  the  best  source  of  anti-tariff  material. 
See  Messenger,  June  8,  1831;  Camden  and  Lancaster  Beacon,  June  21. 


ii2    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

which  the  people  of  South  Carolina  already  be 
lieved  in.  Three  years  previously,  when  there 
was  something  like  a  tariff  party  in  the  state,  they 
had  published  no  end  of  material  on  the  tariff; 
but  now,  when  some  of  these  papers  had  scarcely 
a  reader  who  was  a  tariff  man,  it  was  unnecessary.1 
In  July  and  August  there  were  numerous  meet 
ings  to  appoint  delegates  to  an  anti-tariff  con 
vention  to  be  held  in  Philadelphia  in  September.2 
The  State  Rights  men,  who  had  now  changed 
the  name  of  their  party  from  the  State  Rights 
and  Jackson  party  to  the  State  Rights  and  Free 
Trade  party,3  were  especially  active  at  these  meet 
ings.  In  some  of  them  the  Nullifiers  and  the  Anti- 
nullifiers  clashed,  although  both  were  opposed 
to  the  tariff.4  While  some  of  the  Union  men 
confessed  a  lack  of  faith  in  this  Philadelphia 
meeting,  some  of  the  State  Rights  men  contended 
that  the  promptness  with  which  the  State  Rights 
and  Free  Trade  party  met  the  overtures  and  sent 
delegates  showed  the  falsehood  of  the  charge 
against  them  of  hostility  to  the  Union;  they 

1  Journal,  June  18,  1831;   Mountaineer,  August  27. 

2  Messenger,  July  27,  1831. 

3  See  below,  p.  153. 

4  Journal,  July  and  August,  1831;  Camden  and  Lancaster  Beacon, 
September  6,  7. 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  113 

desired  to  promote  every  measure  which  promised 
to  "  bring  their  tariff  brethren  to  a  sense  of  justice, 
and  only  in  the  last  resort  to  interpose  the  sover 
eignty  of  the  state  "  in  protection  of  her  citizens.1 

The  Philadelphia  convention  held  sessions 
from  September  30  to  October  6  and  was  attended 
by  about  two  hundred  delegates  from  fifteen 
states.  Virginia  was  first  and  South  Carolina 
second  in  number  of  delegates  in  attendance, 
and  a  South  Carolinian,  Warren  R.  Davis,  was 
given  credit  for  having  promoted  the  convention. 
A  memorial  against  the  tariff  was  sent  to  Congress, 
but,  as  the  time  drew  near  for  another  session  of 
Congress  in  December  of  1831,  little  confidence 
was  placed  in  the  memorial;  the  northern  sup 
porters  of  the  American  system  might,  it  was  said, 
make  a  few  concessions  in  the  tariff,  but  on  such 
articles  and  in  such  amounts  as  not  materially 
to  affect  the  system.2 

Although  South  Carolina  was  so  prominent  in 
this  anti-tariff  convention,  and  her  citizens  were 
now  regarded  as  practically  unanimous  against 
the  tariff,  there  were  some  who  boldly  argued  the 
fallacy  of  the  two  stock  arguments,  that  the 

1  Mountaineer,  July  30,  1831;  Messenger,  October  5. 

2  Messenger,  October  19,  25,  November  2,  December  14,  21,  1831. 


ii4    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

burden  of  the  tariff  was  unequal  and  that  it  was 
unconstitutional.  The  Charleston  Southern  Pa 
triot1  continually  pleaded  for  "justice  and  sound 
reasoning"  on  this  subject.  It  held  that  the 
reasonings  of  the  party  which  proposed  a  most 
unusual  remedy  for  southern  wrongs  were  built 
entirely  on  the  unsupported  assumption  that  South 
Carolina,  in  common  with  the  other  southern 
states,  suffered  peculiar  injury  from  federal  legis 
lation.  In  vain  had  proof  been  demanded  that 
the  South  was  enduring  a  wrong  which  did  not 
affect  the  people  of  the  United  States  collectively, 
with  the  exception  of  the  small  number  engaged  in 
manufactures. 

The  charge  was  denied  that  the  Patriot  was 
trying  to  reconcile  the  southern  states  to  the 
tariff  and  the  American  system;  the  editor 
claimed  to  be  one  of  the  first  who  had  raised  a 
cry  against  it,  but  he  was  for  the  truth  about  it, 
and  against  exaggerations  which  only  put  argu 
ments  at  the  command  of  the  promoters  of  that 
system.  He  believed  the  system  wrong  for  the 
country  as  a  whole,  and  not  so  particularly  for  the 
South  and  South  Carolina,  as  was  represented  by 
the  Nullifiers.  It  was  admitted  that  the  South 

1  Patriot,  June  15,  16,  17,  20,  1831. 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  115 

was  justly  more  interested  in  the  overthrow  of 
the  protective  system  because  of  prospective 
injuries,  but  not  because  of  present  ones.  It 
was  denied  that  any  southern  staple  product  had 
fallen  in  price  because  of  the  restrictive  policy; 
and  it  was  insisted  that,  until  other  sources 
for  the  supply  of  cotton  were  opened,  the  injury 
and  loss  would  not  and  could  not  be  sectional. 

The  Patriot  editor  was  not  alone  in  pointing  out 
that  the  tariff  had  not  caused  the  fall  in  the  price 
of  cotton.  A  writer  in  the  Courier  gave  a  list  of 
the  prices  of  exported  cotton  from  1816  to  the  time 
when  the  tariff  came  to  be  so  bitterly  attacked.1 
His  conclusion  was  that  the  tariff  had  had  no 
effect  on  the  price  of  cotton  and  that  there  was 
not  the  shadow  of  a  reason  why  it  should  have; 
the  South  had  glutted  the  market  with  cotton 
by  the  opening  up  of  the  fertile  fields  of  the  South 
west.  The  Yankees  were  not  to  blame;  on  the 
contrary,  by  setting  up  manufactures  they  had 

1  "Franklin,"  in  the  Courier,  August  18,  1831.  The  average 
price  had  been:  1816,  28  cents;  1817,  27^  cents;  1818,  33  cents; 
1819,  20  cents;  1820,  15^  cents;  1821,  14  cents;  1822,  i6|  cents; 
1823,  io|  cents.  There  was  no  tariff  to  cause  a  ruinous  fall  from 
33  cents  in  1818  to  io|  cents  in  1823.  In  1824,  the  year  of  the  tariff, 
cotton  sold  for  14^  cents,  taking  the  average  prices  in  January  and 
June.  In  1825,  the  year  after  the  tariff,  it  was  27  cents  in  June, 
and  in  June  of  1826  only  9  cents. 


n6    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

really  prevented  the  price  of  cotton  from  falling 
still  more. 

The  argument  which  was  perhaps  most  gener 
ally  accepted,  however,  came  from  George  Mc- 
Dufne's  theories  about  the  burdens  of  a  tariff 
tax.  This  doctrine  postulated  not  merely  that, 
as  all  admitted,  discriminating  taxes  in  general 
were  deterrent  to  production,  but  that  the  tariff 
particularly  affected  the  cotton-producer;  that  it 
subtracted  from  his  profits  by  compelling  him  to 
sell  his  produce  at  a  reduced  price.  Its  workings 
amounted  to  a  reduction  of  the  market  value  of 
southern  products,  the  argument  ran,  because  in 
the  process  of  exchange  it  took  more  of  the  south 
ern  product  to  buy  a  protected  article  than  an 
unprotected  one.1 

The  Patriot  replied  to  this  contention.  Con 
ceding,  it  argued,  that  taxes  were  in  a  majority  of 
cases  divided  between  the  producer  and  consumer, 
the  question  arose  as  to  who  was  the  producer 
most  affected;  McDuffie  and  his  supporters  over 
looked  the  producer  of  the  taxed  commodity  and 
insisted  that  the  producer  of  the  commodity  ex 
changed  for  the  taxed  one  bore  all  of  the  impost 
which  did  not  fall  on  the  consumer.  In  the  en- 

1  See  Houston,  Nullification  in  South  Carolina,  chap.  iii. 


The  First  Test  of  Strength  117 

deavor  to  locate  tax  burdens  one  could  not 
attempt  to  trace  the  more  remote  effects  upon 
production;  for  at  what  point  could  one  call  a 
halt  ?  It  would  be  found  that  one  could  not 
stop  even  at  the  producer  who  made  the  im 
mediate  exchange,  but  that  one  would  be  bound 
to  follow  the  principle  until  he  included  nearly 
every  class  of  producers  engaged  in  the  preced 
ing  exchanges.  There  was  no  objection  to  adopt 
ing  this  view  of  the  subject,  provided  that  in 
judging  of  the  effects  of  the  tariff  on  American 
production  the  principle  was  not  made  to  stop 
with  the  grower  of  cotton.1 

Other  prominent  men,  such  as  Colonel  William 
Dray  ton,2  though  they,  with  the  majority  of  the 
Union  party,  thought  the  tariff  acts  unjust  and 
oppressive  and  repugnant  to  the  meaning  and 
spirit  of  the  Constitution,  pointed  out  that  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  these  sentiments  were  at 
variance  with  those  of  many  of  the  most  dis 
tinguished  patriots.3  In  fact,  the  weight  of 

1  Patriot,  May  31,  1831. 

2  Courier,  November  23,  1831. 

3  The  protective  system  had  been  recommended,  as  both  con 
stitutional    and    expedient,    by    Washington,    Jefferson,   Madison, 
Monroe,  Adams,  and  Jackson.     It  was  so  considered  shortly  after 
the  adoption  of  the  federal  Constitution,  in  a  Congress  of  which 


n8    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

authority  seemed  to  be  in  favor  of  the  constitu 
tionality  of  the  tariff  acts;  yet  it  was  solely  upon 
the  ground  of  their  being  palpably  unconstitutional 
that  the  right  to  nullify  them  was  maintained  in 
South  Carolina.  Surely  the  question  of  con 
stitutionality  must  be  admitted  to  be  open  to 
debate;  then  the  State  Rights  party  was  wrong  in 
asserting  the  right  of  nullification,  since  it  based 
its  contention  on  the  construction  of  a  doubtful 
clause.  Such  were  the  arguments  of  the  Union 
party. 

Meanwhile  Jackson  and  Calhoun  were  changing 
from  friends  and  allies  to  irreconcilable  foes; 
the  latter  was  watching  his  presidential  chances 
fade  away,  and  he  was  soon  to  be  forced  to  take 
an  open  stand  on  the  controversy  between  his 
state  and  the  federal  government. 

several  of  the  members  had  been  delegates  to  the  convention.  It 
was  so  considered  in  South  Carolina  in  1816.  The  commercial 
and  navigating  states  of  New  England  were  as  hostile  to  it  in  1816 
and  1824  as  was  South  Carolina  now.  Their  representatives  had 
opposed  it  zealously  and  pertinaciously  at  these  dates,  yet  not  one 
of  them  had  denied  its  constitutionality.  In  the  late  free-trade 
convention  in  Philadelphia  all  concurred  in  admitting  the  impolicy  and 
injuriousness  of  the  protective  system,  yet  was  it  deemed  advisable 
not  to  discuss  its  constitutionality,  as  opinions  were  divided  upon  the 
subject. 


CHAPTER  IV 

A  YEAR  OF  CAMPAIGNING  (1831) 

The  leaders  of  the  State  Rights  party,  although 
defeated  in  their  attempt  to  procure  a  convention, 
had  interpreted  the  legislature's  vote  on  the  reso 
lutions,  especially  the  sixth,  to  mean  that  the 
legislature  would  be  prepared  to  act  as  soon  as  the 
members  then  in  doubt  had  lost  all  hope  of  redress 
from  Congress.1  Thenceforward  their  program 
was  to  draw  from  the  work  of  Congress  lessons 
of  misplaced  confidence,  preach  against  the  tariff 
with  renewed  vigor,  and  thus  to  try  to  prepare 
the  people  for  positive  action.  By  this  process 
many  recruits  were  gained. 

To  Calhoun  it  appeared  certain  that  the  gen 
eral  government  would  not  relax  its  hold  unless 
compelled  to  do  so;  and  it  could  not  be  forced 
to  this  action  unless  the  South  should  unite  in 
earnest  and  vigorous  pressure,  which  he  thought 
it  almost  hopeless  to  expect  so  long  as  Jackson 
maintained  his  popularity  and  his  straddle  on  the 
tariff,  unless  one  of  the  states  should  nullify  the 
tariff  acts.  He  therefore  concluded  that  South 

1  Messenger,  January  5,  1831. 

119 


120    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Carolina,  the  only  state  which  could  possibly 
be  brought  to  "put  herself  on  her  sovereignty," 
must  make  every  effort  to  do  so.1  Nullification 
seemed  at  times  to  have  hearty  support  in  the 
neighboring  states  of  Georgia  and  North  Carolina, 
and  it  was  believed  by  some  that  the  doctrine 
would  surely  spread  throughout  the  plantation 
states;2  but  while  in  some  states  there  seemed 
to  be  a  party  ready  to  support  it,  in  no  state  did 
this  party  show  prospects  of  influencing  the  state 
to  act  immediately.  Meanwhile,  from  "Virginia 
there  came  distinctly  adverse  reports.3 

1  Calhoun  Correspondence:    Calhoun  to  Hammond,  January  15, 
1831. 

2  Mercury,  January  26,  1831. 

3  Hammond  Papers:  John  S.  Preston  to  Hammond,  dated  Abing- 
don,  Virginia,  April  17,  1831:    "   .  .  .  .  The  nullification  doctrine 
of  South  Carolina  being  not  at  all  understood  is  looked  upon  in  this 
section  of  the  state  with  horror.     When,  however,  the  doctrine  is 
explained  in  the  least,  all  admit  that  it  is  but  the  carrying  out  of  the 
boasted  Virginia  principles  upon  which  they  so  much  pride  them 
selves.    Any  attempt  to  discuss  the  subject  in  the  papers  of  this 
region  would  be  useless  and  unprofitable.     The  people  will  not  listen 
to  it.     They  do  not  feel  the  weight  of  the  oppressions  of  the  general 
government,  and  when  they  are  told  of  it  and  the  ultimate  tendency 
of  the  '  System,'  they  stun  you  with  all  the  slangwhangery  of  Fourth 
of  July  patriotism,  the  greatness  of  the  Union,  and  the  blood  and 
thunder  of  civil  war.     The  selfishness  of  the  Scotch-Irish  and  the 
phlegmatism  of  the  Germans  can  never  be  roused  to  feeling  and 
action  until  their  own  firesides  are  invaded." 


A   Year  of  Campaigning  121 

Thus  during  the  first  half  of  1831,  while  Con 
gress  was  in  session,  the  Nullification  presses  in 
South  Carolina  kept  pounding  away,  first  on  the 
tariff  and  then  on  nullification,  painting  that 
remedy  in  ever  more  beautiful  colors.1 

1  Mercury,  March  n,  April  13,  May  28,  1831;  Camden  and 
Lancaster  Beacon,  March  15,  22;  Messenger,  July  6,  20,  August  3; 
Charleston  State  Rights  and  Free  Trade  Evening  Post,  October,  1831. 
The  Nullifiers  saw  the  need  of  another  paper  in  Charleston  besides 
the  Mercury,  and  established  the  Post  on  October  i,  1831.  The 
editors  took  pains  to  answer  any  and  all  objections  raised  against 
the  nullification  doctrine  (Camden  and  Lancaster  Beacon,  March  15, 
1831;  Pendleton  Messenger,  September  28).  For  example,  some 
persons  asked:  Since  in  the  state  of  South  Carolina  the  majority 
claimed  the  right  to  govern  the  minority,  must  it  not  be  granted  that 
the  majority  of  the  Union  should  govern  the  minority?  By  no 
means,  it  was  answered,  for  the  cases  were  absolutely  dissimilar. 
The  Post,  October  21,  1831,  presented  such  an  answer.  The  state 
was  a  single  consolidated  government,  which,  being  democratic, 
must  be  ruled  by  the  majority;  but  the  general  government  was  a 
federal  government  and  must  be  governed  strictly  by  the  terms  of 
confederation.  These  nowhere  prescribed  that  a  majority  of  the 
states  should  govern  a  minority.  When  a  state  disputed  the  author 
ity  of  the  federal  government  to  perform  certain  acts,  it  was  not  a 
question  between  a  majority  and  a  minority.  It  was  a  question 
between  two  parties — the  protesting  state  being  one  party  and  the 
other  states  the  other  party.  In  a  single  state  the  governing  power 
might  safely  be  left  with  the  majority,  as  their  interests  and  those 
of  the  minority  must  in  all  cases  of  importance  be  identical;  but  not 
so  in  a  confederation  of  states,  differing  in  climate,  productions,  and 
the  character  of  their  population.  Here  it  was  necessary  that  there 
be  provided,  as  had  been  done,  some  protection  for  those  states  a 
sacrifice  of  whose  interests  and  safety  might  be  attempted  in  the 
federative  council.  The  right  of  interposition  was  therefore  left, 


122     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Calhoun  was  forced  to  take  an  open  stand  on 
the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  states  to  the 
general  government  before  he  had  expected  to 
do  so.1  In  July  he  issued  a  long  public  letter 
which  at  once  appeared  in  most  of  the  State 
Rights  papers.  It  amounted  to  little  more  than 
a  restatement  of  the  Exposition;  but  this  time 
his  authorship  was  published.  He  did  not  expect 
that  his  statement  or  any  force  of  argument  could 
change  public  opinion  in  the  North,  but  he  did 
feel  assured  that  the  "coming  confusion  and 
danger,"  which  he  had  "for  years  foreseen,"  would 

not  to  the  minority  as  a  minority,  but  to  each  of  the  several  states 
for  itself;  and  when  a  state  exercising  that  right  resisted  in  its  sover 
eign  capacity,  the  question  became  one  between  equals,  between  sov 
ereigns,  to  which  it  would  be  absurd  to  apply  the  terms  "minority" 
and  "majority,"  since  the  sovereignty  of  a  small  state  was  equal  to 
that  of  a  large  state  and  the  sovereignty  of  one  state  equal  to  that 
of  many  states.  How  absurd,  it  was  urged,  to  draw  a  parallel 
between  the  resistance  of  a  sovereign  state  against  the  unauthorized 
acts  of  the  agents  of  the  league  and  the  resistance  of  a  parish  or  cor 
poration  against  its  own  state  government.  Had  England  resisted 
the  decrees  of  the  Holy  Alliance  the  case  would  certainly  not  have 
been  parallel  to  that  of  Manchester  or  Liverpool  resisting  England. 
And  yet  some  politicians  persisted  in  attempts  to  "mystify  truth 
by  confounding  cases  equally  dissimilar." 

But  it  must  be  added  that  those  who  argued  thus  never  thought 
that  it  might  be  equally  absurd  to  liken  the  American  government 
to  the  Holy  Alliance.  See  W.  W.  Willoughby,  The  Nature  of  the 
State;  J.  W.  Garner,  Introduction  to  Political  Science. 

1  Calhoun  Correspondence:   Calhoun  to  Ingham,  June  16,  1831. 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  123 

do  so.  Then  he  hoped  to  see  the  government 
restored  to  one  based  on  the  republican  principles 
of  I798.1 

Another  event  which  the  State  Rights  press 
exploited  was  an  attempt  by  I.  E.  Homes  and 
Alexander  Mazyck  to  bring  a  case  into  court  in 
order  to  get  a  decision  upon  the  constitutionality 
of  the  tariff.  The  judge,  however,  would  enter 
tain  only  such  evidence  as  related  to  the  mere 
execution  of  the  bond  and  would  not  admit  the 
point  of  constitutionality  for  consideration.2 

To  promote  its  cause  the  party  took  occasion 
to  give  a  State  Rights  ball  for  Governor  James 
Hamilton,  Jr.,  on  March  3,  in  Charleston,  at  which 
the  decorations  were  exclusively  "emblematic  of 
the  cause  of  the  South"  and  of  the  "Carolina 
Doctrines."  In  the  center  of  the  floor  was  placed 
a  huge  palmetto  tree  eighteen  feet  high,  in  perfect 
foliage,  to  enkindle  state  pride  and  loyalty  in  the 
heart  of  every  guest  the  moment  he  entered  the 
hall.  It  was  encircled  with  colored  lamps  and 
bore  around  it  a  transparency  labeled  Noli  me 

1  Messenger,  August  3,  1831;    Calhoun's  Works,  VI,  59  to  94; 
Calhoun  Correspondence:    Calhoun  to  Christopher  Van  Deventer, 
August  5;    Calhoun  to  S.  L.  Gouverneur,  August  18;    Calhoun  to 
Armistead  Burt,  September  i,  1831. 

2  Mercury,  September  24,  1831. 


124    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

tangere,  below  which  was  coiled  a  rattlesnake. 
This  reptile  was  often  associated  with  the  pal 
metto  as  an  emblem  of  the  state  to  hint  that  while 
South  Carolina,  like  the  rattlesnake,  would  give 
a  warning,  the  stroke  which  followed  would  be 
fatal.1 

When  the  State  Rights  and  Free  Trade  party 
met  in  Charleston  on  June  25  to  appoint  delegates 
to  the  Philadelphia  free-trade  convention,  it 
proceeded  to  complete  the  organization  of  a  State 
Rights  association,  for  which  a  committee  to 
frame  a  constitution  had  been  appointed  at  a 
previous  meeting.  This  constitution  provided 
for  a  president,  six  vice-presidents,  a  secretary,  a 
treasurer,  and  a  standing  committee  of  nine  to 
carry  on  correspondence  with  other  committees, 
publish  tracts,  and  call  meetings.  There  was  to 
be  a  regular  meeting  every  month,  and  extra 
meetings  might  be  called  at  discretion.  The 
initiation  fee  was  fixed  at  one  dollar  and  the  dues 
at  twelve  and  a  half  cents  a  month.  The  constitu 
tion  furthermore  contemplated  the  holding  of 
semiannual  conventions  of  all  such  associations 
in  the  state,  at  Columbia  in  December  and  at 
Charleston  in  March.2  The  state-wide  movement 

1  Mercury,  March  5,  1831.  2  Mercury,  July  27,  1831. 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  125 

for  federated  associations  made  such  rapid  prog 
ress  that  before  the  end  of  August  as  many  as 
twenty-two  meetings  had  been  held  in  different 
parts  of  the  state,  at  nearly  all  of  which  associa 
tions  were  formed.  The  constitutions  were  all 
modeled  after  that  of  the  Charleston  association, 
the  central  association  of  the  state.  The  party 
press  made  much  of,  and  took  great  hope  from, 
the  movement.1 

On  November  7  the  Charleston  Association 
recommended  that  the  auxiliary  associations 
scattered  over  the  state  appoint  delegates  to  a 
convention  to  be  held  at  Columbia  in  December 
to  adopt  a  more  efficient  plan  of  publishing  and 
distributing  among  the  people  information  in 
regard  to  the  American  system,  the  interests  of  the 

1  Messenger,  August  10,  1831;  Mercury,  August  26.  That  these 
were  looked  upon  as  associations  for  the  more  perfect  organization 
of  the  party  in  the  face  of  local  opposition,  is  shown  by  the  resolutions 
adopted  by  a  Pendleton  meeting,  which  asserted  that  the  people  of 
the  district  were  so  thoroughly  united  that  it  was  unnecessary  to 
form  a  Free  Trade  and  State  Rights  association.  Though  the 
Pendleton  meeting  expressed  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  the  move 
ment  and  wished  the  associations  success,  yet  the  people  of  Pendleton 
seemed  to  be  in  favor  of  delaying  any  further  action  until  the  next 
Congress  had  met,  in  view  of  the  work  of  the  anti-tariff  convention 
at  Philadelphia  and  of  the  fact  that  the  entire  public  debt  would 
soon  be  paid,  which  made  it  likely  that  Congress  would  act  then,  if 
ever.  See  Messenger,  August  24,  November  9. 


126    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

South,  and  its  constitutional  and  confederate 
rights.  During  the  fall  the  state  seems  to  have 
given  itself  up  to  the  business  of  politics.  Din 
ners  and  meetings  were  reported  from  all  quarters.1 
The  convention  met  at  Columbia  on  December  5. 
The  roll  showed  a  representation  of  from  one  to 
nine  delegates  from  each  of  thirty  associations. 
A  committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  an  address 
to  the  people  of  the  state  on  the  object  of  the  asso 
ciations,  and  provision  was  made  for  the  printing 
of  ten  thousand  copies.  A  committee  on  tracts 
and  one  on  contributions  were  put  to  work. 
Preparations  to  distribute  tracts  were  discussed 
and  an  enthusiastic  proprietor  of  stage  lines 
offered  to  transmit  gratuitously  all  packages  sent 
by  the  State  Rights  associations.2 

The  Union  men  were  equally  active.  They 
promptly  denounced  the  State  Rights  associations 
as  Jacobinical,  and  compared  the  officers  of  the 
Charleston  association  to  Marat  and  Robespierre. 
The  whole  movement  was  called  an  imperium  in 
imperio,  designed  to  subvert  all  law  and  govern 
ment,  and  was  spoken  of,  indeed,  as  the  actual 

1  Messenger,  October  19,  November  23,  1831;  Beacon,  October  25; 
Post,  November  25;  Mercury,  November  9. 

2  Mercury,  December  9,  1831;  Messenger,  December  14. 


A   Year  of  Campaigning  127 

commencement  of  civil  war  and  revolution.1  The 
Union  papers  teemed  with  articles  against  the 
heresy  of  nullification.  As  to  the  famous  sixth 
resolution  of  the  last  session  of  the  legislature, 
passed  by  a  vote  of  90  to  24,  of  which  the  State 
Rights  men  were  making  so  much,  some  of  the 
Unionists  contended  that  there  was  no  warrant 
for  nullification  in  it  and  that  three-fourths  of 
those  who  voted  for  it  would  deny  that  they  had 
voted  for  nullification  or  sanctioned  it  as  a  con 
stitutional  means  of  redress.2  Others,  however, 
as  they  reflected  upon  the  legislature's  transactions 
and  upon  the  work  of  Congress,  admitted  that  the 
outlook  was  gloomy. 

While  Joel  R.  Poinsett  believed  that  the  Nulli 
fication  or  Convention  party  was  not  as  strong 
as  had  been  thought,  William  Dray  ton  was  of 
the  opposite  view.  It  appeared  to  him  that  many 
members  of  the  legislature  who  voted  against  the 
calling  of  a  convention  were  not  against  that 
measure  upon  principle,  but  were  merely  averse  to 
it  at  that  time,  and  that  the  addition  of  their 

1  The  State  Rights  press  replied  that  the  opposition  was  equally 
active  if  not  so  aboveboard  in  its  work  (Mercury,  August  3,  1831; 
Messenger,  December  14). 

2  Camden  Journal,  March  26,  1831. 


128    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

group  to  those  who  favored  the  immediate  call 
would  have  made  a  constitutional  majority.1 
The  Union  presses,  however,  continuing  to  keep 
up  a  bold  front,  answered  the  Nulliners  now  with 
argument,  now  with  irony  and  sarcasm.  Each 
party,  thinking  that  nothing  succeeds  like  suc 
cess,  claimed  that  it  was  in  the  ascendant  and 
that  the  other  was  dead  or  dying.2 

It  was  pointed  out  that  a  Union  which  had 
flourished  for  half  a  century  was  rudely  menaced 
with  dissolution  for  an  alleged  palpable  violation 
of  the  national  Constitution;  but  when  it  was 
recollected  that  a  Calhoun,  a  McDuffie,  a  Hayne, 
and  a  Hamilton  had  been  the  alternate  defenders 
and  defamers  of  the  national  Constitution,  the 
sober-minded  patriot  should  solemnly  pause  and 
distrust  the  views  of  such  men,  who  would  now 
demolish  the  political  accomplishments  of  a  Wash 
ington,  a  Madison,  a  Jefferson,  and  a  Franklin, 
to  furnish  speculative  statesmen  with  materials 
and  opportunities  for  uprearing  a  more  splendid 
structure  on  their  ruins.  The  editor  who  reasoned 
thus  thought  that  the  excitement  in  regard  to  the 
tariff  could  be  allayed  by  a  little  sound  reasoning 

1  Poinsett  Papers:   Drayton  to  Poinsett,  January  29,  1831. 

2  Camden  Journal,  May  14,  1831;  Camden  Beacon,  May  20. 


A   Year  of  Campaigning  129 

and  concession  on  both  sides.  He  thought  that 
the  South  was  not  suffering  under  the  tariff  as 
much  as  she  imagined,  and  that  the  most  of  the 
protection  afforded  was  purely  incidental — a  sort 
the  South  admitted  to  be  constitutional.1 

The  Charleston  City  Gazette  took  delight  in 
agreeing  with  the  suggestion  of  a  New  Haven 
paper,  that  the  names  of  a  large  number  of  dis 
tinguished  individuals  in  South  Carolina  should 
be  printed  along  with  those  of  the  members  of  the 
Hartford  convention,  when  the  latter  list  appeared 
on  the  yearly  anniversary  of  that  event — an  at 
tention  provided  for  by  the  gift  of  some  patriotic 
individual  in  order  to  effect  the  uncomfortable 
immortality  of  the  Hartford  participants.  The 
same  paper  held  that  there  was  probably  as  much 
to  be  apprehended  from  a  too  frequent  discussion 
of  revolutionary  doctrines  as  from  the  general 
apathy  which  was  supposed  to  precede  despotism. 
This  editor's  greatest  consolation  was  his  belief 
that  the  clamors  against  the  usurpations  of  a 
corrupt  majority  came,  not  from  sound  patriarchs, 
the  men  of  matured  intelligence,  virtue,  and 
acknowledged  patriotism,  but  solely  from  the 
discontented  place-seekers.  He  was  so  firmly 

1  Columbia  Free  Press  and  Hive,  February  5,  1831. 


130    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

convinced  of  this  that,  though  he  admitted  that 
it  was  possible  for  men  of  talents  and  honor  to 
talk  deliberately  and  philosophically  upon  a  sub 
ject  of  this  kind,  he  doubted  the  patriotism  and 
integrity  of  any  man  who  would  openly  or  covertly 
advocate  disunion  on  account  of  any  pretended 
usurpations  or  inequalities  in  legislation  that  had 
ever  occurred  under  the  Constitution.1 

Other  men,  too,  who  were  apparently  in  a 
position  to  know,  ascribed  evil  motives  to  the 
Nullifiers.  William  Smith  wrote  from  Washing 
ton  that  though  the  Calhoun  party  men  professed 
to  be  opposed  to  the  tariff,  they  pursued  no 
regular  system  to  bring  about  a  reduction  of  it. 
They  allowed  a  feeble  effort  to  be  made  against 
the  tariff,  so  feeble  that  they  knew  it  must  fail, 
and  then  exulted  over  the  failure  as  argument 
against  the  Union  men.  He  believed  that  they 
wanted,  not  a  reduction  of  the  tariff,  but  grievances. 
He  reported  that  the  doctrine  of  "  Nullifica 
tion  and  Convention"  was  as  odious  at  Wash 
ington  as  its  most  ardent  opponents  could  wish; 
that  those  who  supported  it  realized  their  situa 
tion,  were  uneasy,  and  hoped  yet  to  see  Georgia 
embroiled  with  the  general  government  over 

1  Gazetet,  January  6,  10,  14,  1831. 


A   Year  of  Campaigning  131 

the  Cherokee  Indian  case,  in  which  event  they 
might  join  and  make  common  cause  with  that 
state.1 

One  of  the  most  bitter  opponents  of  nullification 
was  the  able  and  sarcastic  editor  of  the  Columbia 
Free  Press  and  Hive.2  It  was  such  a  disgrace  in 
South  Carolina  to  have  any  connection  with 
manufacturing  interests  that  men  would  fight  if 
accused  of  it.  In  the  course  of  his  campaign  the 
Free  Press  and  Hive  editor  appears  to  have 
printed  a  list  of  John  Preston's  property  to  show 
that  the  latter  was  interested  in  some  manu 
facturing  enterprises.  It  was  thought  that  this 

1  Poinsett  Papers:  William  Smith  to  D.  E.  Huger,  February  16, 
1831. 

3  The  following  is  a  good  sample  of  his  style,  from  the  issue  of 
February  12,  1831:  "This  disorganizing  demon  [party  spirit]  loves 
to  appear  clad  in  the  robes  of  patriotism  and  breathing  the  language 
of  disinterested  public  spirit;  often,  ere  the  unsuspecting  are  aware, 
he  insinuates  himself  into  public  favor,  and  when  he  finds  his  grasp 
on  the  popular  feeling  sufficiently  firm  he  indites  a  vocabulary 
of  his  own,  in  which  innovation  signifies  reform  and  reform 
revolution;  laughing  with  demoniac  pleasure  to  see  the  friends 
of  order  and  constitutional  reform  startled  at  the  develop 
ment  of  his  frightful  stratagems,  he  kindly  attempts  to  soothe 
their  fears  by  an  appeal  to  their  chivalry,  telling  them  of  their 
womanish  nerves  and  offering  them  the  insolvents'  security  by 
kindly  offering  to  eat  all  the  bodies  which  may  fall  in  a  war  of  his 
exciting."  The  editor  then  denounced  these  "political  blacklegs" 
and  "gamblers." 


132    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

would  reflect  disadvantageously  upon  his  brother, 
William  Preston,  who  was  a  candidate.1  The 
result  was  a  visit  to  the  editor's  office  by  John 
Preston  and  a  lively  fisticuff.2  About  the  same 
time  a  fight  occurred  between  James  H.  Ham 
mond,  a  Columbia  editor,  and  C.  F.  Daniels, 
editor  of  the  Camden  Journal.  This  affair  grew 
out  of  some  comments  on  an  election,  in  response 
to  which  Hammond  made  a  special  trip  to  Camden 
to  chastise  the  editor.3  The  contest  waxed  hot, 
and  although  Union  men  seemed  to  be  in  personal 
danger  if  they  became  too  offensive  to  their 
opponents,  champions  were  not  wanting.  Espe- 

1  The  same  thing  had  been  alleged  against  Judge  William  Smith 
for  a  similar  purpose.     Another  example  of  this  occurred  the  next 
year  when  the  "Nullies"  accused  Colonel  James  Chesnut,  the  Union 
candidate  for  the  state  Senate  in  Kershaw  district,  of  being  a  tariff 
man  because  he  was  interested  in  a  cotton  factory.     The  editor  of 
the  Camden  Journal  defended  him  by  saying  that  he  had  an  interest 
of  just  $1,300  in  a  cotton  manufactory  established  by  the  late 
David  R.  Williams  at  Society  Hill.    The  interest  on  this  $1,300  was 
just  about  three  bales  of  cotton,  an  article  of  which  Chesnut  raised 
600  bales  annually.     One  of  the  wealthiest  men  in  the  upper  country, 
the  owner  of  three  or  four  hundred  negroes,  with  an  immense 
landed   estate,   was   on   this   ground   accused   of  being  a   "d — d 
Federalist."     "Ridiculous!"  said  the  editor  (Journal,  September  29, 
1832). 

2  Free  Press  and  Hive,  April  2,  1831. 

3  Shots  were  fired  by  the  Journal  editor,  but  a  Clinch  made  him 
miss  his  mark  (Journal,  June  4,  1831). 


A   Year  of  Campaigning  133 

daily  did  they  resent  the  charge  of  being  "Sub 
mission  men."1 

The  Greenville  Mountaineer,  in  contrast  to  some 
papers  referred  to  above,  did  not  impugn  the 
motives  of  such  men  as  John  C.  Calhoun,  Robert 
Y.  Hayne,  George  McDuffie,  and  James  Hamilton, 
Jr.,  but  its  editor  professed  to  feel  certain  that  the 
leaders  and  advocates  of  nullification  did  not 
apprehend  the  dangers  which  he  foresaw  would 
result  from  these  doctrines.  They,  no  doubt, 
thought  the  doctrines  not  only  constitutional, 

1  One  of  the  best  answers  to  this  charge  appeared  in  the  Camden 
Journal,  April  9,  1831,  as  an  editorial  on  "Submission  Men":  "For 
a  year  or  two  past  it  has  appeared  to  afford  great  comfort  to  the 
advocates  of  nullification,  war,  bloodshed,  and  brimstone  to  call 
people  who  have  little  relish  for  a  tournament  with  windmills  sub 
mission  men,  and  they  keep  it  up  with  undiminished  zeal  and  good 

sense We  are  submission  men We  profess  to  submit 

to  the  Constitution  of  our  country.  We  submit  to  the  laws  framed 
under  the  forms  of  that  Constitution.  We  submit  to  the  voice  of  a 
majority  of  the  nation.  We  submit  to  government  in  preference  to 
submission  to  anarchy,  and  we  finally  submit  to  the  oaths  we  have 
taken  to  support  all  these  things  in  their  integrity.  This  is  what  we 
submit  to;  and  now  tell  us  whether  these  are  any  of  the  items  to 
which  you  do  not  submit."  It  is  but  a  subterfuge  to  say  one  submits 
to  the  Constitution,  but  since  it  has  been  violated  one  is  absolved 
from  allegiance.  "  We  do  ourselves  believe  the  spirit  of  the  Constitu 
tion  to  have  been  violated;  but  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  must 
be  constitutionally  remedied.  Because  A  has  cheated  B  out  of  his 
lawful  rights,  is  B  at  liberty  to  knock  A's  brains  out  for  the  offense  ? 
The  national  legislature  has  enacted  an  unconstitutional  law.  Who 


134    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

but  wise  and  judicious.  But  was  it  not  enough 
to  make  them  pause  and  reflect  when  Judge 
Daniel  E.  Huger,  Judge  William  Smith,  Colonel 
William  Drayton,  Judge  J.  P.  Richardson,  Chan 
cellor  Desaussure,  Judge  David  Johnson,  Judge 
William  Johnson,  Judge  J.  B.  O'Neall,  Judge  Lee, 
Governor  Richard  I.  Manning,  Governor  Bennett, 
Colonel  Taylor,  Joel  R.  Poinsett,  James  L.  Peti- 
gru,  Hugh  S.  Legare,  and  many  others,  distin 
guished  alike  for  their  virtues,  talents,  patriotism, 

says  so  ?  A  state,  a  town,  an  individual.  Does  the  state,  the  town, 
or  the  individual  set  itself  up  for  judge  upon  the  question,  or  does  it 
submit  to  the  expounders  provided  by  the  Constitution?  The 
N"ullifiers  tell  us  that  it  is  a  base  and  cowardly  '  submission '  to  obey 
the  government  when  its  requirements  militate  with  their  own 
notions  of  individual  'sovereignty.'  Is  there  anything  but  Jacobin 
ism,  sheer,  rank,  unadulterated  anarchy  and  opposition  to  every 
well-settled  notion  of  government  in  this?  Nothing  under  Heaven! 
And  in  this  sense  we  glory  in  the  name  of  submission  men." 

In  answer  to  the  question,  "What  do  you  propose?"  the  editor 
said  that  such  a  question  was  unbecoming  to  the  opposition,  when  its 
own  followers  differed  as  to  what  policy  to  follow,  and  he  added: 
"We  propose  to  hate  the  tariff  and  the  internal  improvement  system 
as  we  hate  the  devil.  We  propose  to  fight  against  them  both  in  all 
constitutional  ways  and  with  all  constitutional  energy.  We  propose 
to  urge  against  them  every  argument  that  can  be  mustered.  We 
propose  to  give  every  vote  against  them  which  the  Constitution 
allows  us  to  send  into  the  national  legislature.  And  finally,  we  pro 
pose  when  this  kind  of  opposition  proves  unavailing,  to  ask  the  people 
of  South  Carolina  whether  they  prefer  secession  to  a  longer  continu 
ance  in  the  confederacy,  and  if  they  answer  in  the  affirmative,  to 
go  with  them  and  die  in  the  last  ditch!  These  are  our  propositions." 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  135 

and  public  services,  not  only  regarded  them  as 
dangerous  political  heresies,  but  as  the  very  seeds 
of  disunion,  discord,  and  revolution?  Why  was 
it,  he  asked,  that  the  South  must  get  rid  of  the 
tariff  at  all  hazards  ?  Was  it  more  oppressive 
or  more  unconstitutional  than  other  laws  to  which 
they  had  submitted? 

The  embargo  was  at  one  time,  and  the  existing 
system  of  internal  improvements  was  now,  more 
ruinous  to  the  country  than  the  tariff.  The  pur 
chase  of  Louisiana  and  the  establishment  of  the 
National  Bank  were  more  glaring  infractions  of 
the  Constitution  than  the  encouragement  of 
manufactures  by  protective  duties.  The  Alien 
and  Sedition  laws  were  infinitely  more  alarming 
and  more  odious  to  the  feelings  of  freemen  than 
any  measures  Congress  had  passed  before  or  since. 
And  yet  these  oppressive  and  unconstitutional 
acts  of  the  general  government  had  been  sub 
mitted  to  by  the  people  of  South  Carolina  with 
no  thought  of  disunion  or  nullification.  The 
general  tendency,  he  thought,  was  for  these 
excesses  to  cure  themselves  by  natural  reaction. 
The  Sedition  law  had  expired  amidst  the  execra 
tions  of  the  people;  and  the  Alien  law  remained 
a  dead  letter  on  the  statute  books.  The  purchase 


136    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

of  Louisiana  was  considered  the  noblest  act  of 
Jefferson's  administration.  The  system  of  in 
ternal  improvements  had  been  checked  and 
stopped  by  the  wisdom  and  firmness  of  Jackson, 
and  the  National  Bank  would  probably  soon 
receive  its  death  blow  from  the  same  hand. 
Things  had  gone  wrong  before  and  had  become 
right;  they  might  do  so  again.  The  blessings 
the  people  enjoyed  in  spite  of  their  alleged  griev 
ances  were  so  great  that  they  should  "  rather  bear 
those  ills  we  have,  than  fly  to  others  that  we  know 
not  of."1 

John  C.  Calhoun  and  George  McDufne  were 
singled  out  by  the  Unionists  for  especially  vigor 
ous  attack  during  the  summer.  The  people  who 
were  quoting  these  men  were  reminded  that  they 
had  erred  before  on  some  of  the  most  important 
measures  adopted  by  the  government,  and  that 
they  might  be  erring  again;  and  that,  at  any  rate, 
the  mere  mention  of  their  names  was  not  to  be 
regarded  as  proof  of  the  rectitude  of  a  policy. 
Early  in  the  summer  a  dinner  was  given  in  Mc- 

1  Mountaineer,  May  14,  1831.  By  the  middle  of  the  year  several 
of  the  papers  on  both  sides  had  received  such  additional  patronage 
and  had  such  pressing  demand  made  upon  their  columns  by  political 
material,  that  they  felt  that  an  increase  of  size  was  warranted 
(Mercury,  May  27,  1831). 


A   Year  of  Campaigning  137 

Duffie's  honor  at  Charleston,  at  which,  in  a  three 
hours'  speech,  he  spoke  strongly  for  nullification, 
and  rehearsed  his  argument  that  the  producer 
and  not  the  consumer  paid  the  duty  on  importa 
tions  and  that  the  southern  planter  annually 
gave  to  the  government  or  to  the  northern  manu 
facturers  forty  out  of  every  one  hundred  bales  of 
cotton  he  raised.1  McDuffie's  speech  attracted 
much  attention  and  was  attacked  generally  by  the 
Union  press  of  the  state  as  well  as  by  that  of 
the  North.  The  editor  of  the  Camden  Journal 
averred  that  McDuffie's  tariff  theories  could  be 
proved  unsound  by  a  schoolboy  of  ordinary  intel 
ligence.  He  praised  McDuffie,  however,  for 
admitting  that  nullification  was  not  a  constitu 
tional  or  pacific  measure,  while  he  denounced 
him  for  trying  to  persuade  the  people  to  hazard 
their  all  in  resisting  the  tariff.2 

1  The  dinner  was  given  on  May  19.     See  Mercury,  June,  1831; 
Journal,  June  4;  Mountaineer,  June  4;  Courier,  May  30,  June  9,  10. 

2  Other  Union  editors  eagerly  seized  upon  that  part  of  his  speech 
in  which  he  admitted  that  the  doctrine  of  nullification  could  not  be 
derived  from  anything  in  the  Constitution;   this,  they  said,  placed 
the  question  in  its  true  light  (Mountaineer,  June  4,  1831;   Patriot, 
June;  Journal,  June  4).     Many  other  writers  picked  his  arguments 
to  pieces,  and  one  of  them  took  occasion  to  point  out  the  absurdities 
connected  with  the  practice  of  giving  such  political  dinners  (Courier, 
June  9,  "Cato";   June  10,  "One  of  the  People")-     "The  practice 


138    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Calhoun's  public  letter  of  July  26,  1831,  to  the 
Pendleton  Messenger — his  "  Expose, "  as  it  was 
called — was  widely  printed  throughout  the  state, 
and  was  as  widely  attacked  by  the  Union  men, 
who  tried  to  show  that  he  had  a  wrong  conception 
of  the  federal  system.1  The  editor  of  the  Colum 
bia  Free  Press  and  Hive  in  particular,  not  at  all 
chastened  by  Preston's  assault,  indulged  in  elab 
orate  rodomontade  against  Calhoun  and  his 
theories.3 

of  giving  dinners  for  the  actual  purpose  of  political  excitement  and 
influence,  under  the  pretense  of  hospitality  to  distinguished  strangers, 
is  the  vulgar  machinery  of  party  management.  A  few,  so  few  as  to 
amount  to  a  mere  fraction  of  the  community,  get  up  and  attend  this 
eating  caucus.  The  guest,  who  is  always  a  violent  partisan,  takes 
leave  to  say  a  few  words,  and  to  a  toast  of  a  line  or  two  gives  a  pref 
ace  of  three  hours.  Heated  by  zeal  and  wine,  the  audience  clap 
hands,  beat  the  table,  rattle  the  glasses,  and  at  the  hint  of  the 
manager,  spontaneously  rise  up  and  shout  aloud,  upon  the  conclusion 
of  some  inflated  partisan  grandiloquence,  especially  abusive  of  the 
great  majority  of  the  people,  who  do  not  attend,  and  are  unrepre 
sented.  It  is  thus  that  the  great  managers  of  the  party  create  matter 
enough  to  keep  the  columns  of  a  nullifying  paper  full  for  a  day  or 
two  .  .  .  .  "  {Courier,  May  30). 

1  Mountaineer,  August  20,  1831;  Patriot,  August  u;  Free  Press 
and  Hive,  September  3. 

3  The  issue  of  September  3,  1831,  contains  a  choice  example. 
The  following  appeared  on  November  5  and  is  typical:  "Whether 
nullification  is  a  spirit,  some  goblin  damned,  or  a  highly  ethereal 
dementating  gas,  we  confess  our  knowledge  too  limited  in  the 
abstruse  sciences  of  metaphysics  and  materialism  to  decide;  we  must 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  139 

Of  course  during  all  this  controversy  the  Vir 
ginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  were  repeatedly 
spoken  of  by  the  Nullifiers  as  justifying  their 
theories.  Many  Unionists,  on  the  other  hand, 
denied  that  nullification  of  the  South  Carolina 
brand  could  be  found  in  those  resolutions.  Wil 
liam  Dray  ton,  in  an  oration  on  July  4,  1831,  gave 
the  explanation  of  those  resolutions  which  circu 
lated  widely  as  the  platform  of  most  of  the  Union 

leave  these  points  to  be  settled  by  some  greater  name,  which  derives 
celebrity  from  a  learned  title.  It  shall  be  our  task  to  mark  with  care 
and  precision  its  effects  upon  the  human  system  or  the  symptoms 
of  that  alarming  disease  which  is  the  inevitable  result  of  its  inspira 
tion 

"Whether  nullification  be  a  demoniacal  spirit  or  an  exhilarating 
gas,  it  may  be  impossible  to  determine;  but  the  disease  it  produces 
is  established  by  the  clearest  principles  of  nosology;  it  belongs  to  the 
class  Neurosis,  order  Vesania,  and  genus  Amentia.  It  is  chiefly 
confined  to  the  brain,  producing  slight  fever  with  extreme  thirst 
for  blood,  and  occasional  prostration  of  appetite  for  Kentucky  hogs 
and  mules  and  Yankee  manufactures,  and  a  perfect  loathing  of 
wooden  nutmegs."  He  fears  that  the  disease  is  "moveable"  and 
may  produce  cholera  morbus  or  sweating  sickness  if  it  falls  upon  the 
bowels  or  skin.  "But  should  it  continue  a  fixed  Neurosis,  an  ade 
quate  enlargement  of  our  already  spacious  lunatic  asylum  may  be 
all  that  is  requisite. 

"The  distemper  arising  from  nullification  is  manifestly  an  epi 
demic,  and  although  it  spends  its  force  almost  exclusively  on  the 
brain,  the  great  sympathy  which  exists  between  that  important 
organ  and  the  liver  causes  the  latter  function  to  become  so  far  per 
verted  as  to  throw  a  sufficiency  of  gall  into  the  circulation  to  produce 
a  jaundiced  eye  and  optical  illusion,  and  hence  we  may  account  for 


140    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

party.1  He  regarded  them  in  a  twofold  aspect, 
as  offering  two  modes  of  resistance,  one  constitu 
tional  and  the  other  revolutionary;  the  former 
including  all  the  legal  means  of  arresting  a  politi 
cal  evil  under  the  federal  system,  such  as  declara 
tions,  remonstrances,  and  joint  protests  by  the 
states;  the  latter,  extra-constitutional  in  char 
acter,  recognizing  the  right  of  a  state  to  secede 
when  all  these  regular  and  constitutional  means 
had  failed.  This  explanation  was  said  to  be  in 
exact  conformity  with  James  Madison's  letter  of 
August,  1830,  interpreting  those  oft-cited  resolu 
tions. 

In  the  same  oration  Dray  ton  took  special 
delight  in  tearing  the  Exposition  to  pieces.  In 
the  first  place,  he  supported  the  Exposition,  by  an 
elaborate  argument,  in  its  assertion  that  the  tariff 
acts  of  1824  and  1828  were  unconstitutional,  but 

a  political  phenomenon  which  has  perfectly  confounded  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  the  uninfected  portion  of  the  citizens  of  our  own  and 
other  states.  Thus  to  an  eye  to  which  the  tariff  and  internal  im 
provements  appear  perfectly  constitutional  and  expedient,  after  a 
paroxysm  of  nullification,  these  laws  appear  so  palpably  unconstitu 
tional  and  oppressive  that  the  most  perfect  patriotism  consists  in 
resisting  them.  This  strange,  and  to  our  state  novel,  disease  appears 
to  exert  a  pantomimic  influence  upon  its  victims;  hence  whenever  one 
becomes  nullified  he  recognizes  in  his  most  perfect  previous  likeness 
a  capapie  tory." 

1  Patriot,  July  29,  1831;  also  published  in  pamphlet  form. 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  141 

he  did  not  agree  that  previous  to  these  acts  there 
was  no  case  in  point  of  similar  unconstitutional 
legislation. 

As  to  the  enumeration  of  the  evils  resulting  from 
the  tariff,  he  felt  that  the  Exposition  was  greatly  in 
error.  He  attacked  the  position  that  the  southern 
people  as  producers  of  the  great  export  staples 
bore  the  bulk  of  the  burden  of  the  tariff.  Only 
in  so  far  as  they  were  consumers  of  articles  upon 
which  there  were  import  duties  were  they  bearers 
of  the  tariff  burden.  Therefore,  since  the  compu 
tation  of  the  share  of  the  contributions  of  the  two 
sections  to  the  general  treasury  was  based  upon 
the  assumption  that  protective  duties  fell  upon 
exports,  the  calculation  was  wrong. 

As  for  the  remedy  recommended  to  prevent  the 
operation  of  the  tariff  acts  upon  the  state  of 
South  Carolina — nullification — he  had  no  sym 
pathy  with  it,  because  if  such  a  doctrine  were 
reduced  to  practice  the  Union  could  not  subsist. 
He  agreed  that  the  states  were  sovereign  in  many 
respects,  but  emphatically  denied  that  these  in 
cluded,  by  "clear  implication,"  a  veto  on  the 
action  of  the  general  government  on  contested 
points  of  authority.  That  the  Constitution  sanc 
tioned  such  a  remedy  to  prevent  the  encroachment 


142    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

of  the  general  government  on  the  reserved  rights 
of  the  states,  he  would  by  no  means  admit,  because 
if  a  state  regarded  a  law  as  unconstitutional  and 
could  effectively  interpose  its  veto,  the  very 
tribunal  authorized  by  the  Constitution  to  decide 
finally  whether  a  law  was  constitutional  would  be 
ousted  from  its  jurisdiction,  and  the  judicial 
power  of  the  United  States  would  be  nugatory 
where  it  was  most  essential.1 

Furthermore,  he  could  not  understand  how  the 
supporters  of  the  Exposition  could,  with  it,  admit 
that  the  Supreme  Court  had  an  indispensable  and 
constitutional  power  to  nullify  the  acts  of  state 
legislatures  wrncn,  in  its  opinion,  conflicted  with 
the  powers  delegated  to  the  general  government, 
and  yet  claim,  with 'the  Exposition,  that  a  state 
had  a  constitutional  right  to  "  control  the  action 
of  the  general  government  on 'contested  points  of 
authority/'  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  state, 
the  action  of  the  general  government  conflicted 

^""^s. 

with  the  powers  delegated  to  it.  |*The  sovereign 
states  entered  into  a  compact,  which  'was  the 

1  There  was  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  most  of  the  Union  men  to 
ascribe  to  the  Exposition  the  assertion  that  nullification  was  pro 
vided  for  in  the  Constitution,  and  to  ascribe  to  the  Constitution  the 
statement  that  the  federal  courts  were  to  settle  all  questions  of  con 
stitutionality. 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  143 

federal  Constitution;  the  powers  which  they  re 
served  they  might  still  exercise  unhindered;  but 
such  as  they  granted  to  the  federal  government 
they  could  not  exercise  nor  resume,  as  long  as 
that  government  lasted. 

The  argument  that  the  Exposition  recom 
mended  not  an  unqualified  but  a  suspensive  veto, 
until  the  power  in  question  should  be  sanctioned 
by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  Drayton 
pronounced  meaningless.  If  a  state  could  control 
the  action  of  the  general  government  on  contested 
points  of  authority  under  the  Constitution,  it 
could  do  so  also  under  an  amendment.  Even 
though  an  amendment  were  passed  for  a  specific 
purpose,  difference  of  interpretation  might  arise, 
as  had  happened  in  the  case  of  the  Eleventh 
Amendment.  The  state  veto  must  end  in  civil 
war,  and  could  not  be  a  peaceful  remedy,  unless 
the  President  should  fail  to  perform  his  duty.  As 
to  secession  and  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  he 
believed  it  not  only  impossible  but  unworthy  of 
contemplation. 

There  was  even  a  lingering  defense  of  the  tariff 
in  the  state,  both  as  to  its  constitutionality  and 
as  to  its  expediency.1  The  Union  and  State 

1  Gazette,  August  23,  1831. 


144    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Rights  Gazette,  which  was  established  in  Charleston 
in  the  early  fall  of  1831,  was  an  avowed  pro-tariff 
paper.  The  Southern  Patriot  denied  that  this 
sheet  printed  the  doctrines  of  the  Union  party, 
but  a  Mercury  writer  said  that  it  looked  very  much 
as  though  it  must  be  an  orthodox  Union  paper.1 
"A  Party  Concerned"2  answered  the  Patriot's 
hasty  denial  and  contended  that  the  paper  was 
what  it  purported  to  be,  a  collection  of  essays 
from  the  daily  Union  papers,  reprinted  for  con 
venient  circulation  in  the  country  to  combat  the 
heresy  of  nullification;  and  that  the  Patriot  was 
apparently  yielding  more  credence  to  the  ex 
aggerated  misstatements  of  the  Nullifiers  about 
the  evils  of  the  tariff  than  the  Union  party  would 
admit.  This  writer  felt  positive  that  half  of  the 
party  regarded  these  exaggerated  misstatements 
as  mere  humbug. 

For  instance,  he  asked,  who  believed  the  non 
sense  that  the  planters  were  plundered  by  the 
government  of  forty  bales  of  cotton  out  of  every 
hundred  ?  Who  believed  that  the  hard  times  of 
1823  were  caused  by  the  tariff  of  1824?  "Who 

1  Mercury,  August  27,  1831. 

2  Charleston  Gazette  (not  to  be  confused  with  this  Union  and  State 
Rights  Gazette},  August  29,  1831. 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  145 

but  a  gull"  believed  that  the  tariff  had  reduced 
the  price  of  cotton  from  20  cents  to  10  cents  ? 
Surely  not  as  many  as  one-fourth  of  the  Union 
party  believed  such  nonsense,  for  they  knew  that 
it  was  a  trick  of  the  Nullifiers  to  say  that  the  citi 
zens  of  the  state  were  unanimous  as  to  the  evil 
and  differed  only  as  to  the  remedy.  Surely  the 
Union  party  would  not  yield  this  point,  for  that 
meant  the  yielding  of  the  whole  question  and  the 
precipitation  of  civil  war.  If  it  were  true  that  the 
tariff  was  palpably  unconstitutional  and  that  it 
had  reduced  the  South  to  hopeless  ruin,  what 
mattered  it  whether  the  remedy  was  constitu 
tional  or  not  ?  The  only  question  a  sensible  man 
would  then  ask  would  be  as  to  its  effectiveness. 
The  truth  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the 
tariff  was  that  the  best  and  wisest  men  differed; 
but  as  to  the  evil  results  of  the  present  tariff  the 
adherents  of  the  Union  party  unanimously  agreed 
that  the  results  had  been  grossly  exaggerated  and 
that  when  they  were  compared  to  the  evil  effects 
of  disunion  they  were  as  "the  dust  in  the  balance." 
The  Union  men  therefore  were  opposed  to  nulli 
fication  because  it  was  a  remedy  worse  than  the 
disease,  and  every  man  who  would  make  the 
disease  out  to  be  worse  than  the  remedy  justified 


146    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

the  remedy.  This  was  a  fair  statement  of  the 
position  of  the  majority  of  the  Union  party  as 
to  what  they  believed  to  be  misstatements  about 
the  evils  of  the  tariff.  The  pro-tariff  complexion 
of  the  Union  and  State  Rights  Gazette  represented 
only  a  small  minority  of  the  Union  party. 

In  preparation  for  the  Fourth  of  July  the  Union 
men  at  Charleston  held  a  meeting  on  May  30  in 
"Seyle's  Long  Room/7  their  usual  gathering- 
place,  and  made  plans  for  festivities  of  their  own 
separate  from  those  of  the  State  Rights  party. 
At  once  the  papers  on  both  sides  were  flooded  with 
a  discussion  of  this  new  departure  from  the  usual 
custom  of  having  one  united  celebration.1  The 
Courier,  Gazette,  and  Patriot  of  course  supported 
the  Union  project,  but  the  Mercury2  denounced 
the  idea  of  making  the  celebration  of  that  day  a 
mere  party  measure,  and  pleaded  for  the  continu 
ance  of  the  custom  by  which  on  "the  glorious 
Fourth"  the  various  societies  and  military  corps 
of  every  political  complexion,  repaired  to  the 
churches  after  the  parade,  accompanied  by  their 
fellow-citizens,  to  offer  prayers  and  hear  orations 
in  celebration  of  the  achievements  of  the  fathers. 

1  Gazette,  May  31,  June  i,  1831. 
3  Mercury,  May  31,  June  i,  1831. 


A   Year  of  Campaigning  147 

The  Union  press  answered  that  the  new  departure 
meant  simply  that  the  people  had  resolved  no 
longer  to  be  insulted  at  every  recurrence  of  the 
Fourth  of  July  by  orations  and  toasts  violative 
of  every  national  and  historic  principle.  On  the 
last  two  anniversaries  of  Independence  Day,  they 
declared,  the  nullification  orators  had  poured  out 
expressions  of  their  hatred  for  the  Union  party, 
and  their  toasts  and  speeches  had  teemed  with  the 
most  rancorous  abuse.  The  supporters  of  the 
Union  party  had  simply  determined  that  they 
would  no  longer  be  abused  to  their  faces  and  that 
Carolina  was  no  longer  to  be  thus  misrepresented.1 
As  the  day  of  celebration  approached,  party 
spirit  ran  so  high  that  there  was  talk  of  the  possi 
bility  of  July  4  being  a  bloody  day;  but  such  idle 
talk  was  confined  mainly  to  the  Mercury.2  Ad 
herents  of  the  State  Rights  party,  not  to  be  out 
done,  made  as  extensive  preparations  as  their 
opponents,  and  invited  all  the  societies  and 
volunteer  corps  of  the  city  to  celebrate  with  them. 
The  three  leading  societies  of  the  city  were  the 
Revolutionary,  Cincinnati,  and  '76  societies. 
The  State  Rights  party  had  gained  control  of  the 

1  Courier,  June  2,  29,  1831;  Gazette,  June  6,  14. 
3  Courier,  July  27,  1831;  Gazette,  June  14. 


148    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

last  two  and  refused  the  Union  men  a  chance  to 
be  heard.  These  societies  now  became  strictly 
partisan. 

When  the  day  arrived,  each  party  had  its 
parade,  prayers,  orations,  reading  of  original  odes, 
etc.,  and  each  ended  the  day  with  a  dinner.  That 
of  the  Union  party  lasted  from  4 :  oo  to  10 :  oo  P.M., 
with  speeches  and  toasts  of  such  length  and  num 
ber  as  to  testify  to  great  devotion  to  the  cause  on 
the  part  of  those  who  would  sit  through  to  the  end.1 
No  clash  of  arms  occurred,  but  from  this  day  forth 
party  lines  were  most  severely  drawn.  Even  the 
ladies  had  a  chance  to  express  their  party  affilia 
tions  at  a  "soiree"  given  for  them  on  July  6  by 
the  Union  party  in  its  "Bower";2  and  the  State 
Rights  party,  also  recognizing  the  feminine 
influence,  had  an  affair  for  its  own  ladies. 

All  over  the  state  the  customary  festivities  of 
July  4  were  characterized  by  much  party  feeling. 
The  toasts,  both  "regular "  and  "volunteer,"3  dealt 
with  the  political  situation.  The  Charleston  cele 
bration  attracted  much  attention  and  the  speeches 

1  Life  and  Times  of  C.  G.  Memminger,  by  H.  D.  Capers,  has  a 
reprint  of  the  proceedings  of  the  celebration  by  the  Union  party. 

2  The  Bower  was  a  special  building  100  by  150  feet,  built  by  the 
party  for  its  celebration;   see  Courier,  July  8,  1831. 

3  The  regular  toasts  appeared  on  the  printed  program. 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  149 

were  widely  quoted.  As  an  example  of  what  politi 
cal  capital  was  made  of  some  of  these  speeches, 
the  Camden  Beacon  held  that  because  Hugh  S. 
Legare*  said  that  the  tariff  was  not  oppressive,  and 
because  Petigru  said  that  it  was  constitutional, 
the  Submission  party  of  the  state  was  one  with 
Daniel  Webster,  New  England,  Tariff,  Federal 
party.  All  this  was  deduced  from  Legare'  sasser- 
tion  that  the  decay  of  the  lower  country,  the  fall 
of  the  price  of  cotton,  and  the  comparative  un 
productiveness  of  slave  labor  had  no  connection 
with  the  tariff.1  The  Journal  immediately  and 
justly  denied  that  he  and  his  party  were  in  favor 
of  the  tariff. 

The  committee  in  charge  of  the  Union  celebra 
tion  in  Charleston  had  invited  President  Jackson 
to  be  present  on  the  Fourth.  The  President  re 
plied  to  the  invitation  on  June  14  in  a  letter  com 
mending  the  party.  He  made  some  reference  to 
those  who  might  pursue  a  course  not  so  trustful 
in  the  justice  of  the  national  councils,  which  was 
interpreted  by  the  State  Rights  party  as  a  threat 
of  coercion  to  intimidate  the  people  and  render 
them  less  disposed  to  "execute  their  most  sacred 

1  Beacon,  July  19,  1831.  Legar6's  speech  is  given  in  The  Writings 
of  Hugh  Swinton  Legare,  edited  by  his  sister. 


150     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

duty."  Accordingly,  the  State  Rights  men,  after 
the  publication  of  this  letter,  held  meetings  all 
over  the  state  to  reprimand  the  President  and  to 
refute  his  insinuation  that  the  State  Rights  and 
Free  Trade  party  opposed  the  Union.1  Colleton 
district,  which  eagerly  seized  such  opportunities, 
at  a  meeting  at  Walterboro  denounced  Jack 
son's  threat  of  coercion  as  a  gross  assertion  of 
tyrannical  power.  Thereafter  most  of  the  meet 
ings  held  to  form  State  Rights  associations  took 
occasion  to  censure  the  President. 

As  late  as  October  15,  1830,  the  general  im 
pression  appears  to  have  been  that  the  Jackson 
administration  was  entirely  in  sympathy  with  the 
Nullifiers.3  Some  of  the  Union  men  saw,  however, 
that  though  the  Nullifiers  were  thus  confident  and 
called  themselves  the  only  true  Jackson  men,  their 
doctrines,  if  ever  put  into  practice,  would  bring 
disgrace  to  his  name;  this  he  must  see  before  long, 
and  then  the  delusion  of  the  Nullifiers  would  be 
banished.  The  idea,  however,  that  the  Unionists 

1  Mercury,  July  7,  20,  August  4,  26,  1831;  Messenger,  July  20, 
August  24. 

2Poinsett  Papers;  letter  with  this  notation:  "Confidential — 
Copy  of  a  letter  from  a  Gentleman  dated  Charleston,  October  15, 
1830." 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  151 

were  not  in  favor  at  Washington  and  that  the 
Nullifiers  were  supported  by  the  President  and 
the  Secretary  of  State,  paralyzed  the  strength  of 
the  Union  well-wishers  for  a  time.  A  letter  from 
Jackson  under  date  of  October  26,  1830,"  shows 
that  at  that  very  time  he  supposed  that  everyone 
acquainted  with  him  knew  that  he  was  opposed 
to  the  nullification  doctrine,  as  he  had  repeatedly 
declared  himself  so.  Other  assurances  soon  came 
to  the  Union  party  that  the  President  was  in 
sympathy  with  it,  and  by  the  end  of  February 
the  press  began  to  reflect  the  true  position  of  the 
President.2 

There  were  slight  beginnings  of  the  presidential 
campaign  early  in  i83o,3  but  the  campaign  began 
more  in  earnest  in  the  next  year,  after  the  publi 
cation  of  the  Jackson- Calhoun  correspondence 
over  the  Seminole  affair.  It  was  then  not  long 
before  some  State  Rights  papers  showed  coldness 
toward  the  General,  and  after  his  letter  of  June  14 
nearly  all  were  his  openly  avowed  opponents. 

1  Poinsett  Papers:   Jackson  to  Robert  Oliver,  October  26,  sent 
to  Poinsett  on  October  28  by  R.  M.  Gibbes,  of  Baltimore. 

2  Poinsett  Papers:  Drayton  to  Poinsett,  January  29,  February  12, 
1831.     Courier,  January  22,  February  23. 

3  Mountaineer,  April  10,  1830;  Mercury,  April  22. 


152    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  Union  papers,  of  course,  were  all  his  admirers 
and  supporters.1 

The  rupture  between  Jackson  and  Calhoun  was 
caused  by  the  story  of  an  incident  which  occurred 
in  a  cabinet  meeting  in  1818,  after  Jackson  had 
seized  some  Spanish  posts  in  Florida  and'  had 
placed  the  United  States  government  in  an  embar 
rassing  situation.  Calhoun  had  suggested  that 
Jackson  had  transcended  his  orders  in  conducting 
the  campaign  and  that  in  all  such  cases  a  court 
of  inquiry  was  indispensable  to  preserve  the  dis 
cipline  of  the  army  and  maintain  the  dignity 
of  the  government.  The  proposal  was  not 
sustained  and  Jackson  did  not  know  until  near 
the  middle  of  1830  that  Calhoun  had  made  it. 
When  Calhoun  admitted  that  he  had  suggested 
the  court  of  inquiry,  Jackson  became  at  once  and 
forever  the  foe  of  the  man  whom  he  had  toasted 
at  a  public  dinner  not  long  before  as  the  "noblest 
work  of  God."2  Even  after  the  split  between 
Jackson  and  Calhoun,  however,  some  State 
Rights  men  tried  to  show  that  friendship  to  Cal- 

1  Journal,  January  8,  May  14,  July  16,  November  12,  1831; 
Mercury,  February  24,  March  29;  Messenger,  March  9;  Mountaineer, 
August  27,  September  3. 

3  William  J.  Grayson's  Memoirs.     MSS. 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  153 

hoim  did  not  necessitate  hostility  to  Jackson,  for 
they  feared  an  evil  even  worse  than  the  General 
in  the  person  of  Henry  Clay.1 

Jackson's  letter  of  June  14  marks  an  important 
point  in  the  relations  of  the  President  to  the  South 
Carolina  factions.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
the  State  Rights  party  in  October  of  1828  added 
to  its  name  that  of  Jackson  and  called  itself  the 
State  Rights  and  Jackson  party.2  In  May,  1831, 
the  use  of  Jackson's  name  in  its  title  was  dis 
continued  by  this  party  and  the  term  Free  Trade 
substituted;  this  dropping  of  the  name  of  Jack 
son,  it  was  alleged,  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
trouble  between  Jackson  and  Calhoun  over  the 
Seminole  campaign,  nor  did  it  mean  that  the  party 
was  unwilling  to  support  the  General  for  the 
presidency;  but  it  was  done  simply  because  the 
party  had  concluded  that  it  was  idle  to  look 
to  any  President  or  to  anything  but  "the  un 
daunted  spirit  of  the  state."  At  any  rate, 
whereas  the  State  Rights  men  had  been  loud 
in  praise  of  Jackson,  after  the  publication  of 

1  Mercury,  April  16,  1831.  There  were  also  a  few  sporadic 
efforts  to  push  forward  the  ticket  of  Jackson  and  Calhoun.  See 
Beacon,  May  10,  1831. 

3  In  the  Mercury  of  June  21,  1831,  "Phocion"  wrote  a  review  of 
party  history. 


154    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

the  letter  of  June  14  they  became  his  most  per 
sistent  foes. 

While  the  State  Rights  party  was  so  active  in 
forming  its  associations  during  the  latter  half  of 
1831,  the  Union  party  held  meetings  almost  as 
numerous,  though  it  did  not  organize  societies 
as  did  the  Nullifiers.  The  Unionists  took  great 
delight  in  denouncing  the  Nullification  clubs  as 
even  worse  than  the  original  Jacobin  Club.1 

XA  writer,  "Furioso,"  in  the  Courier,  August  10,  1831,  thus 
characterized  the  way  this  system  of  clubs  worked:  "What  a  fine 
thing  is  a  well  organized  party.  How  beautifully  its  different  parts 
play  into  each  other.  The  big  Nullifiers  in  Charleston  have  a  meet 
ing;  organize  a  club;  pass  resolutions  and  huzzah;  they  then  send 
circulars  to  the  little  Nullifiers  in  the  interior  and  beg  them  to  make 
haste  and  kick  up  a  dust  at  the  country  Court  Houses.  The  circular 
arrives;  the  lawyers  at  the  Court  House  dash  off  and  bring  together 
the  constables,  the  hangers-on  at  the  taverns,  and  a  dozen  others; 
they  meet  in  the  court  room  and  flourish  a  resolution  or  two;  de 
nounce  General  Jackson;  organize  a  political  club;  get  some  old 
fellow  to  come  out;  call  him  a  Revolutionary  worthy;  vote  thanks 
to  one  another;  and  send  their  proceedings  to  the  Mercury,  counter 
signed  by  Tom,  the  Pres.,  and  Jack  Copias,  the  Sec.  And  now  behold 
the  columns  of  the  Mercury,  the  day  after  the  receipt  of  the  proceed 
ings.  Oh,  what  congratulations!  What  rejoicings  it  pretends  to 
make !  Pieces  appear,  headed  with  the  words  '  Glorious  News,'  and 
'Interesting  Proceedings/  and  all  that  kind  of  thing,  and  the  people 
are  gravely  told  that  these  are  evidences  of  public  opinion.  O 
temporal  O  mores!  how  this  world  is  given  to  gulling;  what 
authentic  evidences  of  public  opinion!!" 

Another  writer,  in  the  Mountaineer,  May  26,  1832,  satirized  the 
workings  of  the  association  thus:  "Already  we  have  a  selected  body 


A   Year  of  Campaigning  155 

Their  resolutions  expressed  complete  faith  in  Jack 
son,  opposition  to  the  tariff,  and  the  determination 
to  stand  by  the  Union  until  the  only  alternative 
should  be  dissolution  or  the  loss  of  civil  liberty. 
They  incidentally  expressed  the  hope  and  belief 
that  the  Philadelphia  anti-tariff  convention  would 
lead  to  results  and  show  the  value  of  constitutional 
opposition  to  the  tariff.1 

The  fall  city  elections  in  Charleston  were 
eagerly  anticipated  as  a  test  of  party  strength. 
Each  party  nominated  a  complete  ticket,  of 
intendant  and  twelve  wardens,  and  the  election 
was  declared  the  most  exciting  ever  held.2  The 

whose  resolutions  are  law,  and  whose  measures  are  conceived  and 
dictated  by  a  half  dozen  men.  The  Association  was  not  elected  by 
the  people,  but  selected  by  the  agents  of  a  few  leaders.  Their  resolu 
tions  are  always  the  work  of  the  chiefs  and  only  submitted  after  full 
consideration  to  the  adoption  of  the  Association.  When  adopted, 
they  are  the  law  of  the  land,  in  a  community  which  has  always 
subjected  law  and  legislation  to  public  opinion.  This  process  is 
wonderfully  efficient.  The  leaders  resolve;  the  Association  propa 
gates;  and  the  people  follow.  Who  in  the  Association  dare  oppose 
Pompey,  Caesar,  and  Crassus  ?  If  there  be  one  so  disposed,  he  must 
feel  that  opposition  would  be  suicidal.  And  who  so  bold  among  the 
people  as  to  oppose  the  views  of  the  Association  ?  If  there  be  any, 
they  are  damned  as  submission  men " 

1  Courier,  August  i,  10,  September  15,  16,  30,  November  10,  18, 
25,  1831;  Journal,  August  13,  December  3;  Mercury,  August  20,  22; 
Mountaineer,  September  10,  24,  October  8;   Gazette,  September  15. 

2  The  vote  the  year  before  was  thought  large,  with  about  1,600, 
but  this  year  it  reached  1,978. 


156    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

result  proved  to  be  a  decisive  victory  for  the  State 
Rights  ticket.1  This  was  hailed  by  the  State 
Rights  party  men  as  a  great  triumph,  and  perhaps 
with  reason,  in  view  of  the  elections  of  the  previous 
year.  In  their  natural  jubilation  they  interpreted 
this  victory  to  mean  that  the  people  would  no 
longer  be  gulled  by  the  Unionist  prophecies  of  a 
disastrous  result  of  this  plan.  They  did  not  con 
sider  that  the  election  proved  that  the  people 
advocated  nullification,  as  the  Union  party  had 
said  such  a  result  would  declare,  but  they  rejoiced 
that  Charleston  had  intimated  a  refusal  to  con 
demn  nullification  or  any  other  measure  which  the 
state  might  find  it  expedient  to  adopt.  The  State 
Rights  committee  itself  published  a  plea  for 
moderation  on  the  part  of  the  members  of  that 
party,  to  show  a  love  of  peace  and  order,  that 
they  might  keep  the  confidence  of  the  people.2 
The  Union  party  immediately  held  a  rally,  re 
solved  never  to  cease  to  oppose  nullification,  and 
claimed  that  Charleston  was  by  no  means  ready 
to  sanction  an  act  of  nullification  by  the  legisla- 

1  The  vote  on  intendant  was  typical  of  the  respective  average 
party  votes  on  all  the  offices.     Pinckney,  heading  the  State  Rights 
and  Free  Trade  ticket,  received  1,040;    Pringle,  heading  the  State 
Rights  and  Union  ticket,  received  932  (Courier,  August  30,  September 
7,  12,  1831;   Mercury,  September  6,  7). 

2  Mercury,  September  7,  1831;  Patriot,  September  6. 


A   Year  of  Campaigning  157 

ture,  which  it  was  said  was  being  projected.  Some 
of  the  Union  men  excused  their  defeat  by  saying 
that  they  were  simply  caught  napping,  over 
confident  of  their  majority.  It  was  admitted, 
too,  that  they  needed  an  improved  organization.1 

Although  elections  for  the  state  legislature  came 
only  in  the  even  years,  the  death  of  William  Aiken 
caused  a  vacancy  in  the  Charleston  delegation 
which  was  to  be  filled  in  October.  Both  parties 
made  strong  efforts  to  win  this  place.  The  Union 
party  succeeded  in  rallying  its  forces  somewhat, 
for  they  were  beaten  this  time  by  the  small  major 
ity  of  eight.2 

Politics  was  by  no  means  a  clean  business  even 
in  that  day,  for  there  were  charges  of  election 
frauds  on  both  sides,  and  both  parties  by  resolu 
tions  asked  the  state  legislature  to  take  measures 
to  promote  the  purity  of  elections.  Both  were 
guilty,  but  each  thought  the  other  more  so.3 

1  Courier,  September  7,  12, 1831;  Gazette,  September  9,  October  13. 

2  Courier,  October  4,  13,  1831;   Patriot,  October  12,  13;   Gazette, 
October  13. 

3  Patriot,  October  13,  1831 ;  Courier,  October  21.     The  legislature, 
when  it  met,  passed  a  resolution  declaratory  of  the  qualifications  of  ,  , 
electors  within  the  election  district  of  Charleston  which  would  exclude  1| 
quite  a  number  of  northern  and  eastern  merchants  who  carried  on  JU 
their  business  in  Charleston,   the  great  majority  of  whom  were  «j« 
attached  to  the  Union  party  (Poinsett  Papers:  Dray  ton  to  Poinsett, 
December  27,  1831). 


158    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Since  the  membership  of  the  legislature  would 
not  be  altered  in  the  coming  session,  there  was 
little  expectation  that  there  would  be  any  change 
in  the  state's  position.  Before  the  legislature 
met  there  was  some  talk  of  bringing  up  the  con 
vention  question  again,  and  some  few,  bolder  than 
others,  even  suggested  that  the  State  Rights 
majority  of  the  legislature  go  ahead  without  the 
call  of  a  convention  and  nullify  the  tariff  law  by 
legislative  act;  but  the  folly  of  either  of  these 
procedures  was  admitted  by  most  of  the  State 
Rights  or  Convention  party. 

Again  the  cry  was  raised  of  hope  for  relief  from 
the  next  session  of  Congress.  There  was  a  possi 
bility,  as  even  some  Conventionists  admitted, 
that  a  dispute  as  to  the  division  of  the  spoils 
might  cause  the  American-system  supporters  of 
the  new  Congress  to  split  and  to  yield  some 
what  on  the  tariff.1  The  Conventionists  insisted, 
however,  that  even  that  would  furnish  no  guaranty 
against  the  future,  whenever  a  combination  of 
interests  should  again  arise  and  push  it  forward. 
By  the  time  the  legislature  met,  late  in  Novem 
ber,  the  Nullification  party  as  a  whole  seemed 
to  have  determined,  perhaps  "in  some  solemn 

1  Mercury,  November  28,  1831;  Messenger,  July  27,  October  5. 


A   Year  of  Campaigning  159 

convocation  of  the  Club/'  to  await  the  action  of 
the  next  Congress.  The  governor's  message,  more 
moderate  than  the  Union  party  had  expected, 
recommended  the  wait-awhile  policy,  and  this 
immediately  quieted  what  little  fear  there  was  of 
imminent  conflict  with  the  general  government.1 
On  the  evening  of  November  29  there  was  held 
in  the  Senate  room  a  meeting  "of  the  members  of 
the  legislature  friendly  to  the  re-election  of  General 
Jackson."  It  was  a  Union  party  move,  but  the 
State  Rights  party  members  attended.  Daniel  E. 
Huger  presided,  and  James  L.  Petigru  offered 
resolutions  nominating  Jackson  for  re-election, 
thus  causing  a  heated  debate.  Many  of  the  State 
Rights  men  spoke  against  the  resolutions,  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  premature,  in  view  of  the 
struggle  in  which  South  Carolina  was  engaged 
with  the  general  government.  They  admitted 
that  they  preferred  Jackson  to  Clay  or  Wirt,  but 
they  wanted  South  Carolina  to  keep  aloof  for  a 
time.  Finally  the  meeting  agreed  to  adjourn,  so 
that  those  favorable  to  the  nomination  could 
remain,  while  those  who  opposed  the  nomination 
could  assemble  at  another  place.  The  opponents 

1  Journal,  November  26,  1831;  Courier,  December  5,  10.    Poinsett 
Papers:   Drayton  to  Poinsett,  December  27. 


160    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

went  to  the  hall  of  the  House,  organized,  and 
adopted  a  resolution  that  it  was  inexpedient  for 
South  Carolina  to  participate  in  the  presidential 
campaign.  The  sixty-six  who  remained  and  voted 
for  the  Jackson  resolutions  authorized  the  appoint 
ment  of  eleven  delegates  to  the  Baltimore  con 
vention  of  the  next  May.  The  ninety-six  of  the 
opposition  asserted  that  their  chief  reason  for 
objection  was  that  the  Submission  men  were 
trying  to  use  the  presidential  campaign  as  a  means 
of  diverting  attention  from  the  crucial  issue.1 

A  plot  of  the  two  caucuses  shows  a  distribution 
virtually  the  same  as  that  of  the  previous  year  on 
the  convention  question.  With  but  few  excep 
tions  in  the  state  it  is  quite  probable  that  the  party 
division  as  to  nullification  applied  also  to  the 
question  of  the  presidency.2 

The  State  Rights  men  had  planned  to  issue  a 
stinging  rebuke  to  the  President  in  the  form  of  a 
set  of  resolutions  denouncing  his  June  14  letter, 
and  the  reports  of  the  committees  on  federal  rela 
tions  were  made  according  to  this  understanding. 
But  the  President's  message,  satisfactory  to  the 

1  Mercury,  December  3,  9,  1831;  Courier,  December  13,  28; 
Beacon,  December  6. 

3  See  Map  IV  and  p.  107,  n.  3. 


A   Year  of  Campaigning 


161 


South  Carolina  statesmen  as  to  tariff  reform, 
was  received  in  time  to  gain  for  the  President  a 
commendatory  resolution  along  with  his  condem 
nation.  The  Union  men  attempted  to  have  the 


Legislative  caucuses,  November 
>o,  1831  (Utrcury,  December 
19.  1831;  CoKfMf,  December 
.3.  '831). 


MAP  IV. — Jackson  and  Anti- Jackson  caucuses,  1831 

whole  course  of  the  President  approved,  but 
failed.1  During  the  debates  on  these  resolutions 
the  doctrine  of  nullification  was  often  discussed. 
On  the  whole,  the  Union  men  were  glad  that  the 

1  The  vote  was  State  Rights  63,  Union  56  (Mercury,  December  17, 
1831). 


1 62    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

legislature  adjourned  without  doing  anything 
more  rash  than  to  pass  resolutions  in  relation  to 
the  President's  letter.1 

South  Carolina  was  thus  left  where  she  had 
stood  the  year  before,  awaiting  the  results  of  the 
congressional  session.  The  State  Rights  men 
made  much  of  their  display  of  forbearance,  and 
justified  it  on  the  ground  that  South  Carolina 
was  in  duty  bound  to  await  the  outcome  of  the 
memorial  of  the  Philadelphia  anti-tariff  conven 
tion,  since  she  had  been  so  active  in  that  conven 
tion  and  since  one  of  her  sons,  Judge  William 
Harper,  was  to  be  one  of  its  special  messengers  to 
Congress.2  The  State  Rights  men  were  probably 
honest  in  professing  that  the  state's  position  was 
what  they  desired.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  fact 
remains  that  the  State  Rights  party  had  prac 
tically  no  other  position  open  to  its  choice.  Until 
a  new  legislature  was  elected  in  which  the  State 
Rights  party  should  control  the  two-thirds 
majority  required  for  calling  a  convention,  the 
state  was  not  likely  to  be  forced  into  a  more 
advanced  position. 

1  Mountaineer,  December  31,  1831.  Poinsett  Papers:  Drayton  to 
Poinsett,  December  27. 

3  Mercury,  January  4,  1832. 


A  Year  of  Campaigning  163 

Before  leaving  Columbia  the  Union  members  of 
the  legislature  got  together  and  published  an 
address  stating  anew  and  in  a  concise  form  the 
position  of  that  party.  As  usual  they  admitted 
that  nullification  was  a  revolutionary  right,  but 
denied  its  constitutionality;  they  admitted  the 
oppressions  of  the  tariff,  but  denied  that  they 
were  enough  to  justify  revolution.1 

1  Mercury,  January  6,  1832;  Post,  January  10. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  NULLIFIERS  CAPTURE  THE  LEGISLATURE 

(1832) 

In  the  early  weeks  of  the  new  year  the  partisans 
awaited  developments.  A  protectionist  conven 
tion  at  New  York  offset  the  low-tariff  demonstra 
tion  at  Philadelphia,  and  Congress  appeared  to 
lend  a  willing  ear  to  Clay's  plan  for  revising  the 
tariff  on  a  basis  of  but  trifling  reductions  and  for 
spending  a  large  part  of  the  revenue  for  internal 
improvements  to  benefit  the  West. 

This  program  promised  an  indefinite  prolonga 
tion  of  the  government's  previous  policy.1  The 
convention  of  the  State  Rights  associations  which 
met  at  Charleston  in  February  denounced  Clay's 
project  as  involving  a  systematic  exploitation  of 
the  South  by  the  seizure  of  half  its  earnings  and 
the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  in  such  a  way  as  to 
double  northern  profits.  Nullification  was  easily 
preached  from  that  text.2 

The  memorial  of  the  Philadelphia  convention, 
with  an  additional  one  by  Judge  William  Harper 

1  Mercury,  January  4,  21,  1832;  Messenger,  January  n. 
'Mercury,  February  27,  1832. 

164 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        165 

and  Professor  Thomas  R.  Dew,  was  duly  presented 
to  Congress,  but  the  course  of  the  debates  in  the 
two  houses  gave  strong  indication  that  no  item 
of  protection  would  be  remitted.  The  Committee 
on  Manufactures,  to  which  all  the  memorials  and 
bills  had  been  referred,  at  length  reported  a  bill 
closely  in  accordance  with  Clay's  wishes.  This, 
of  course,  to  the  minds  of  the  malcontents  capped 
the  climax  of  oppression.1  As  an  added  ground 
for  indignation  it  was  pointed  out  that  Congress 
would  probably  pass  the  "  mammoth  pension  bill," 
more  to  increase  expenditures  than  to  reward  the 
patriots  of  the  Revolution.  The  State  Rights 
party  was  rapidly  coming  to  agree  with  John  C. 
Calhoun  that  though  South  Carolina,  by  inspiring 
a  fear  of  interposition,  had  made  some  impression, 
it  would  not  be  sufficient  to  compel  the  oppressor 
to  relax  his  grasp ;  no  change  in  the  attitude  of  the 
government  would  come,  nor  could  the  necessity 
of  action  be  impressed  on  the  other  states,  until 
South  Carolina  should  interpose.2 

1  Mercury,  March  6,  April  5,  6,   1832;    Messenger,  March  21, 
April  4. 

2  Messenger,  April  n,  1832.     Calhoun  Corespondence :   Calhoun 
to  J.  E.  Calhoun,  December  25,  1831;   Calhoun  to  A.  Burt,  Decem 
ber  27,  1831;  Calhoun  to  R.  K.  Cralle,  April  15,  1832. 


1 66    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  bill  known  by  the  name  of  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  McLane  next  occupied  the  attention  of 
Congress,  but  it  met  no  favor  with  the  State  Rights 
men;  the  Union  men,  however,  seemed  to  accept  it 
as  satisfactory.  William  Drayton  reported  from 
Washington  that  the  difficulty  of  securing  a  tariff 
adjustment  had  been  greatly  increased  because  the 
delegations  from  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  with 
the  exception  of  James  Blair,  Thomas  R.  Mitchell, 
and  himself,  were  for  maintaining  the  abstract 
principle  of  free  trade  by  placing  all  duties  at  a 
uniformly  low  level,  whether  imposed  upon  pro 
tected  or  unprotected  articles.  He  himself  was 
striving  for  a  medium  between  the  two  extremes— 
between  uniform  duties  of  12  per  cent  and  15  per 
cent  and  the  then  existing  high  protective  duties 
—and  he  believed  that  if  the  South  Carolina  con 
gressmen  would  show  any  spirit  of  compromise, 
something  might  be  accomplished  to  allay  the 
excitement.  But,  after  working  several  weeks  in 
Congress,  Drayton  lost  all  hope;  he  felt  that  the 
Nullifiers  were  irresistible,  and  would  remain  so 
until  the  South  Carolina  citizens  were  brought 
to  their  senses  by  some  tremendous  blow.1 

1  Poinsett  Papers:  Drayton  to  Poinsett,  March  19,  April  5,  13, 
May  2,  1832.  Patriot,  April  4. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        167 

When  McLane's  scheme  of  a  tariff  was  pre 
sented,  the  Gazette  pronounced  it  a  compromise 
to  which  neither  party  could  in  reason  oppose  a 
single  objection.  It  brought  down  the  rate  of 
duties  to  a  scale  to  which,  in  the  early  stage  of  the 
controversy,  the  anti-tariffites  gave  a  ready  assent. 
This  assent  was  given,  however,  only  when  they 
believed  it  impossible  to  get  their  demands  satis 
fied.  Believing  that  the  majority  of  the  Nullifiers 
cared  less  for  the  public  than  for  their  own  per 
sonal  good  and  were  greedy  for  the  clamor  by 
which  they  maintained  some  little  notoriety,  this 
editor  said  that  he  would  not  be  surprised  if  they 
should  reject  the  very  boon  which  they  had  once 
prayed  for,  and,  taking  new  ground,  refuse  to 
accede  to  any  measure  which  did  not  do  away 
with  the  principle  of  protection  and  repeal  the 
tariff  entirely.  They  would  certainly  demand 
something  too  extravagant  for  attainment  in  order 
to  continue  to  have  a  subject  for  clamorous  excite 
ment  and  agitation,  which,  while  elevating  indi 
viduals,  had  served  most  completely  to  prostrate 
the  country  and  bring  about  that  misery  which 
they  had  been  pleased  to  ascribe  to  any  other  than 
the  proper  cause.1 

1  Gazette,  May  8,  1832. 


1 68     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

This  prediction  as  to  the  demands  of  the 
Nullifiers  proved  in  large  measure  true.  They 
soon  rejected  the  McLane  bill  on  the  grounds 
that  it  maintained  the  principle  of  protec 
tion  to  its  full  extent  and  that  it  was  an  open 
avowal  that  the  American  system  was  to  be 
adhered  to  at  all  hazards.  They  believed  that  the 
Unionists  accepted  it  simply  because  of  an  eager 
ness  to  seize  on  anything  which  wrould  have  the 
remotest  tendency  to  prevent  state  interposition.1 

Next  came  the  Adams  bill,  as  a  report  from  the 
Committee  on  Manufactures,  which  the  State 
Rights  men  said  was  worse  than  the  McLane  bill.2 
The  news  that  the  Adams  bill  had  been  enacted 
reached  Charleston  while  the  two  parties  were 
holding  their  Fourth  of  July  celebrations.  When 
the  Union  orator,  at  the  close  of  his  address, 
announced  "the  gratifying  intelligence"  that 
"Mr.  Adams'  Bill"  had  passed,  the  news  was 
received  with  a  degree  of  enthusiasm  that  evinced 
the  deep  anxiety  of  the  assembly  for  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  Union.  When  the  State  Rights 
orator,  at  the  close  of  his  address,  also  informed 
his  audience  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  and  said 

1  Mercury, May  8,9, 10, 1832;  Post,M.a.y  10;  Messenger,  May  16, 23. 
3  Mercury,  June  i,  1832;  Messenger,  June  16,  18. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature       169 

emphatically  that  when  such  a  bill  as  that  was 
offered  to  them  as  a  "  concession/ '  their  only 
answer  would  be  that  of  the  American  Congress 
when  Great  Britain  offered  conciliation,  "We 
have  counted  the  cost,  and  find  nothing  so  intol 
erable  as  voluntary  slavery,"  the  sentiment  was 
received  with  deafening  applause.1 

Three  South  Carolinians  voted  for  the  passage 
of  the  bill — William  Drayton,  James  Blair,  and 
Thomas  R.  Mitchell.  The  State  Rights  press 
denounced  them  as  "betrayers  of  the  state." 
The  Unionists  did  all  in  their  power  to  get  the 
bill  accepted  by  the  South  and  South  Carolina. 
They  pointed  to  what  they  called  material  reduc 
tions  and  remarked  that  a  total  abandonment  of 
the  system  could  not  be  expected  at  once.  Dray- 
ton,  Blair,  and  Mitchell  were  faithfully  defended 
for  wisely  and  patriotically  accepting  a  com 
promise  and  thus  alleviating  an  evil  which  they 
knew  they  could  not  entirely  cure.  The  bill, 
they  said,  was  to  be  merely  temporary,  and  would 
soon  be  followed  by  new  victories.2 

1  M  ercury,  July  7,  1832. 

2  Mercury,  July  7,  16,  20,  21,  1832;    Courier,  July  6,  9,  21,  28, 
August  i,  September  18,  October  26;  Patriot,  July  n,  14,  27,  August 
24;    Journal,  July  14,  21;    Mountaineer,  July  28,  August  4,  Sep 
tember  22,  October  13. 


1 70  Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Many  analyses  of  the  bill  were  made  to  show 
that  it  had  or  had  not  reduced  the  tariff  in  such 
a  way  as  to  relieve  the  South.  George  McDuffie, 
indorsed  by  the  State  Rights  press,  asserted  that 
the  act  just  passed  would  take  off  duties  amounting 
to  between  four  and  five  millions,  of  which  only 
about  $844,000  would  be  taken  from  the  pro 
tected  articles;  but  that  the  new  requirement  of 
cash  payments  would,  on  the  other  hand,  add 
twice  as  much  to  the  burden  of  the  South  as  would 
be  taken  from  it  by  the  reduction  in  rates.  And, 
said  the  Mercury,  this  was  called  "compromise," 
"glorious  news,"  and  hailed  as  a  measure  highly 
acceptable  and  beneficial  to  the  South.1 

Just  before  leaving  for  home,  the  members  of 
the  South  Carolina  delegation  in  Congress,  with 
the  exception  of  the  three  who  had  voted  for  the 
Adams  bill,  drew  up  an  "Address  to  the  people  of 
South  Carolina."  They  reviewed  the  situation 
and  concluded  that  all  hopes  had  now  indeed 
vanished.  The  signers2  regarded  the  protective 
system  as  the  settled  policy  of  the  country.  They 

1  Mercury,  July  28,  August  24,  28,  1832. 

2  Robert   Y.    Hayne,    Stephen    D.    Miller,    George    McDuffie, 
Warren  R.  Davis,  J.  M.  Felder,  J.  K.  Griffin,  W.  T.  Nuckolls,  R.  W. 
Barnwell  (Messenger,  August  i,  1832). 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        171 

left  the  question  of  remedy  to  the  sovereign 
power  of  the  state.  The  State  Rights  men 
rejoiced  to  see  among  the  signers  two  men,  Felder 
and  Nuckolls,  who  had  been  regarded  as  Union 
party  men,  and  who,  not  long  since,  had  been 
among  those  who  hoped  for  relief  from  Congress. 
The  Union  men  and  editors  who  were  willing 
to  accept  the  Adams  bill,  at  least  temporarily,  of 
course  came  in  for  censure  and  even  for  vilifi 
cation.1  The  editor  of  the  Gazette  was  kept  busy 
refuting  the  charge  that  his  paper  had  been  cor 
ruptly  influenced  by  the  northern  manufacturers 
and  northern  capital  to  defeat  South  Carolina's 
attempts  at  redress.  The  editor  admitted,  how 
ever,  that  he  was  not  a  believer  in  free  trade  in  the 
absolute  and  radical  sense  of  the  term  as  used  by 
Nullifiers,  who,  "between  the  summer  and  autum 
nal  solstice,"  had  become  such  sticklers  that  they 
were  ready  "to  pull  down  the  custom  house, 
....  hang  the  Yankees,  burn  the  manufac 
tories,  elect  Mr.  Calhoun  Emperor,  make  Dr. 
Cooper  High  Priest  of  the  established  church, 
etc."2  The  Unionists  picked  to  pieces  the  address 
of  the  South  Carolina  congressional  delegation 

1  Journal,  February  18,  1832;  Messenger,  February  8. 
a  Gazette,  January  6,  7,  1832. 


172    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

(minus  Drayton,  Blair,  and  Mitchell)  and  declared 
that  its  leading  statements  were  unsupported  by 
fact.  McDuffie's  calculations  to  show  that  the 
new  tariff  was  actually  worse  than  that  of  1828, 
which  were  accepted  as  proof  positive  by  the 
State  Rights  party,  were  examined  and  declared  to 
be  full  of  unpardonable  miscalculations.1 

The  State  Rights  men  now  abandoned  gener 
alities.  Before  the  last  state  election,  in  1830, 
they  had  merely  advocated  a  convention,  some  of 
them  being  willing  to  follow  any  plan  it  might 
adopt,  others  believing  that  once  a  convention 
were  secured,  nullification  could  be  readily  accom 
plished.  During  the  year  following  their  failure 
to  get  a  convention  they  began  gradually  to 
preach  nullification  more  openly.  Toward  the 
end  of  the  year  they  had  decided  to  rest  on  their 
oars  until  Congress  furnished  them  new  fuel;  but 
by  the  middle  of  1832  nullification  became  the 
one  question,  and  the  fine  points,  both  pro  and 
con,  were  debated  as  never  before. 

Early  in  1832  the  Union  men  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  Nullifiers  had  thrown  off  the 

1  Courier,  July  6,  9,  21,  28,  August  i,  September  18,  October  26, 
1832;  Patriot,  July  n,  14,  27,  August  24;  Journal,  July  14,  21; 
Mountaineer,  July  28,  August  4,  September  22,  October  13. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        173 

mask  and  no  longer  thought  it  necessary  to  pre 
tend  love  for  the  Union,  as  Robert  J.  Turnbull, 
Henry  L.  Pinckney,  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  and 
George  McDuffie  had  done  before.  The  most 
ominous  feature  of  the  situation  seemed  to  the 
Union  men  to  be  the  fact  that  the  Nullifiers 
thought  the  public  mind  now  prepared  for  any 
step.  It  was  pointed  out,  with  much  truth,  that 
the  tone  and  spirit  of  the  State  Rights  party  had 
changed  considerably.  Its  supporters  now  spoke 
in  a  bolder  language  and  assumed  higher  grounds 
than  they  did  twelve  or  eighteen  months  pre 
viously.  Then  the  remedy  was  always  spoken  of 
as  peaceful,  and  he  who  thought  that  the  case  was 
otherwise  was  laughed  at  for  his  ignorance;  now 
it  was  admitted  by  many  that  there  was  great 
danger  involved,  but  it  was  argued  that  dangers 
were  as  nothing  when  compared  with  present 
wrongs  and  injuries;  that  a  crisis  of  some  sort 
must  be  forced,  and  that,  be  the  result  disunion 
or  revolution,  South  Carolina  could  not  be  worsted. 
Though  this  was  not  the  precise  language  of  the 
State  Rights  men,  the  Unionists  said  that  it  was 
surely  such  as  might  be  inferred  from  their  most 
recent  addresses,  speeches,  and  essays.1  There 

1  Mountaineer,  March  17,  1832;  Gazette,  March  2. 


174    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

appeared  to  be  two  parties  in  the  country  deter- 
mined  to  bring  the  government  to  its  grave — on 
the  one  side,  the  ultra-tariff  party,  with  Henry 
Clay  at  its  head,  and  on  the  other,  the  Nullifi 
cation  party,  led  by  John  C.  Calhoun,  were  reveal 
ing  their  principles  in  a  way  that  left  no  further 
chance  of  deception.1  At  least  this  was  true  by 
the  middle  of  July,  when  the  Nullifiers  were 
universally  espousing  the  address  of  Robert  Barn- 
well  Smith  (Rhett)  on  the  occasion  of  the  issuance 
of  the  "  Walterborough  Manifesto "  on  July  4. 
No  longer  was  it  pretended  that  nullification  was 
necessarily  peaceful;  it  was  freely  admitted  that 
civil  war  or  disunion  might  result  from  it,  indeed, 
would  result,  unless  Congress  and  the  states  came 
to  an  agreement.2  Even  though  admitting  that 
revolution  might  ensue,  the  Nullifiers  treated  the 
perils,  the  bloodshed  and  desolation  of  such  an 
outcome,  as  matters  of  no  moment,  and  boasted 

1  Journal,  May  26,  1832. 

2  Military  companies  took  partisan  titles,  the  "Jefferson  Nulli 
fiers,"  for  example.    The  Fourth  of  July  was  made  a  gala  day  by 
the  party  all  over  the  state  and  enthusiasm  reached  fever  heat. 
The  ladies  of  the  districts  took  sides  and  expressed  their  approval 
by  the  presentation  of  banners  with  original  designs  handsomely 
worked  or  painted  (Mercury,  July  2,  6,  21,  25,  31,  October  13,  1832; 
Messenger,  July  n,  19;  Mountaineer,  September  i). 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        175 

that  they  would  reap  from  it  only  a  harvest  of 
greatness  and  glory.  To  the  Union  men,  however, 
such  a  turn  of  events  seemed  to  promise  nothing 
short  of  utter  ruin.1 

Some  of  the  Union  men  quite  early  predicted 
that  such  a  fate  was  inevitable,  because  they 
believed  that  the  State  Rights  party  had  the  power 
of  the  state  in  its  hands.2  All,  however,  con 
tinued  to  fight  hard  for  the  cause,  not  willing  to 
acknowledge  defeat  until  the  fall  elections  were 
over  and  had  gone  against  them.  They  asserted 
that  the  veto  by  a  state,  proposed  as  a  check  upon 
"implied  powers "  itself  involved  a  more  unwar 
rantable  " implied  power"  on  the  part  of  the  state. 
The  State  Rights  men  replied  that  nullification  was 
a  substantive  power  which  the  states  had  never 
surrendered;  it  was  an  inherent,  original  right, 
and  depended  neither  on  implication  nor  con 
struction  of  the  Constitution.3 

The  Union  men  affirmed  that  the  doctrine  was 
new,  speculative,  and  but  lately  developed.  The 

1  Mercury,  July  14,  1832;  Courier,  July  28. 

2  Journal,  April   21,    1832.     As  election  time  approached,  the 
State  Rights  men  thought  caution  a  better  policy,  and  generally 
refrained  from  warlike  expressions.     They  were  accused  by  the 
Union  men  of  trying  to  hide  the  fact  that  on  the  election  was  really 
to  depend  the  fate  of  the  Union  (Mountaineer,  September  8,  29). 

3  Mercury,  August  18,  1832. 


176    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

State  Rights  men  appealed  afresh  to  the  Virginia 
and  Kentucky  resolutions.  They  had  used  Madi 
son  as  an  authority  until  he  denied  that  nulli 
fication  was  intended  in  any  of  the  resolutions  of 
which  he  was  the  author.  They  still  clung  to 
Jefferson,  however,  and  told  how  Congressman 
Warren  R.  Davis  had  procured  from  among  that 
statesman's  manuscripts  a  document  which  proved 
that  he  favored  nullification.  But  even  if  the 
theory  were  new,  they  said,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  practice  had  often  been  successful.1 

The  Union  men  said  that  it  was  inconceivable 
to  them  how  the  language  of  Jefferson,  that  "nulli 
fication  is  the  rightful  remedy,"  could  be  con 
strued  to  mean  anything  else  than  combined  or 
united  nullification  by  at  least  a  majority  if  not 
the  whole  number  of  the  states;  that  if  a  state 
could  at  pleasure  arrest  the  laws  of  the  federal 
government,  the  union  was  subverted.  The 
State  Rights  men  declared  that  it  was  only  acts 
of  undelegated  power  that  the  states  might 
resist.  Nullification,  so  far  from  subverting, 
would  strengthen  and  preserve  the  Union  and 

1  Massachusetts,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Connecticut,  Georgia,  Vir 
ginia,  Kentucky,  and  other  states  were  said  to  have  used  nullifi 
cation  successfully  (Courier,  July  18,  1832;  Mercury,  August  18; 
Messenger,  March  28;  Post,  May  16,  September  22). 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        177 

was  an  essential  principle  for  conserving  the 
government.1 

The  Union  men  held  that  if  the  right  to  nullify 
was  possessed  by  one  state,  it  must  inhere  in  all, 
together  with  the  means  of  enforcing  it.  But  by 
what  process  could  Tennessee  nullify  the  tariff 
acts  ?  She  had  no  ports  which  she  could  declare 
free.  The  State  Rights  men  answered  that,  in  the 
first  place,  South  Carolina  rights  did  not  depend 
on  whether  Tennessee  had  a  seaport  or  not;  and 
that,  secondly,  Tennessee  could  nullify  by  resolv 
ing  to  support  a  seaboard  state  which  nullified. 

The  Union  men  contended  that  there  was  no 
such  potency  in  state  sovereignty  as  the  Nullifiers 
ascribed  to  it.  It  could  not,  by  any  action  of  the 
legislature  or  convention,  confer  on  the  citizen 
any  right  to  resist  the  legislation  of  Congress 
which  he  did  not  possess  without  such  action. 
The  federal  court  might  interfere,  and  citizens 
resisting  the  operation  of  the  tariff  act  might  be 
tried  for  treason  against  the  United  States.  To 

1  Patriot,  March  22,  1832;  Courier,  May  5,  July  3,  October  27. 
Said  the  Nullifiers:  "By  arresting  the  operation  of  unconstitutional 
laws  it  brings  the  government  back  within  its  legitimate  sphere, 
checks  the  career  of  profligacy  and  corruption,  removes  the  causes 
of  sectional  jealousy  and  hatred,  causes  the  government  to  be  admin 
istered  as  it  should  be,  with  equity,  impartiality,  and  purity,  and  thus 
assures  the  harmony  of  the  people  and  the  durability  of  the  Union." 


178    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

this  it  was  replied  that  individual  resistance  to  the 
tariff  had  proved  unavailing  before  the  federal 
court,  but  that  fortunately  there  was  protection 
furnished  the  citizens  in  the  sovereign  power  of  the 
state.  If  the  people  of  the  state  had  no  right  in 
convention  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  tariff  and 
to  enforce  that  judgment  within  their  own  limits, 
then  the  people  were  to  be  pitied  and  South  Caro 
lina  was  "  a  mere  petty  corporation,  without  power 
or  authority,  a  mere  footstool  of  the  federal  gov 
ernment." 

The  citizens  of  South  Carolina  owed  no  alle 
giance  to  any  government  on  earth  which  was  at 
all  incompatible  with  that  which  they  owed  to 
the  state.  He  who  committed  treason,  therefore, 
would  be  he  who  opposed  the  state  and  sided  with 
the  government  with  which  she  was  contending; 
it  would  be  he  who  attempted  to  enforce  the  acts 
which  the  state  had  solemnly  declared  should  not 
be  executed  within  her  limits.  The  action  of  the 
state  would  not  be  confined  to  authorizing  her 
citizens  to  resist  the  tariff  law,  but  would  prevent 
any  of  them  from  obeying  it.  There  was  potency 
enough  in  the  sovereignty  of  the  state,  not  only 
to  protect  those  who  might  resist  the  tariff  against 
the  federal  court,  but  to  prevent  its  most  devoted 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        179 

supporters  from  attempting  to  enforce  it.1  And 
yet  the  State  Rights  men  continually  argued  that 
the  cry  of  war  and  bloodshed  as  a  result  of  nulli 
fication  was  all  beside  the  mark,  for  nullification 
as  a  remedy  had  been  contemplated  and  purposely 
left  available  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
and  it  was  one  that  would  procure  the  redress  of 
grievances  easily  and  peaceably.  The  use  of 
force  to  bring  a  nullifying  state  into  subjection  to 
the  general  government  seemed  to  them  a  usurpa 
tion  too  flagrant  to  be  worthy  of  contemplation.2 
•  A  long  letter  by  John  C.  Calhoun  to  Governor 
James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  dated  August  28,  1832,  was 
printed  widely  in  the  South  Carolina  press  and 
was  looked  upon  by  the  State  Rights  party  as 
the  last  word  on  the  theory  of  nullification.  It 
was  believed  to  establish,  as  clearly  and  con 
clusively  as  any  political  proposition  could  be 
established,  not  only  the  federative  character  of 
the  Union  and  the  right  of  a  state  in  its  sovereign 
capacity  to  nullify  the  usurpations  of  the  federal 
government,  but  also  the  idleness  of  the  appre 
hension  that  the  central  authorities  could  either 

1  Mercury,  August  17,  22,  1832. 

2  Mercury,    March    24,    July    17,    1832;    Messenger,   May    30, 
August  29. 


180    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

coerce  South  Carolina  into  submission,  or  punish 
her  assertion  of  her  rights,  by  abolishing  the 
Charleston  port  of  entry.1 

To  the  Union  men,  however,  Calhoun  was  not 
of  unimpeachable  authority.  His  Hamilton  letter 
was  picked  to  pieces  and  every  position  he  took 
severely  criticized.  These  writers  agreed  with 
Calhoun  that  the  Constitution  was  a  compact 
between  states,  who  were  sovereign  and  free  to 
accept  or  reject  it.  But  they  held  that  through 
its  convention  each  state  in  accepting  the  Con 
stitution  had  bound  all  its  citizens  to  the  new 
obligations  of  the  Union  and  relinquished  all 
authority  to  determine  whether  a  certain  power 
exercised  by  the  general  government  was  or  was 
not  granted  by  the  Constitution.  They  denied  the 
analogy  which  Calhoun  set  up  between  the  federal 
Constitution  and  a  treaty  between  sovereign 
nations,  saying  that  the  ratification  of  the  Con 
stitution  had  not  been  a  purely  international 
transaction;  that  its  completion  had  effected  an 
essential  change  in  the  political  condition  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  states  ratifying  it;  that  a 
transfusion  or  a  mutual  interchange  of  rights  and 
duties  had  taken  place,  commingling,  in  a  political 

1  Mercury,  September  26,  1832;  Messenger,  September  15. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        181 

sense,  the  contracting  parties,  both  as  bodies 
corporate  and  as  individual  citizens;  and  that  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  had  created  a 
direct  and  immediate  connection  between  the 
citizens  and  the  general  government  in  all  cases 
where  such  immediate  connection  could  be  useful 
or  necessary,  all  assertions  to  the  contrary  not 
withstanding.  The  Union  men  tried  to  show  the 
absurdity  of  a  contract  between  the  states  which 
allowed  each  state  to  interpret  the  obligations 
of  the  Constitution  at  all  times  conformably  to 
its  own  views  and  interests,  whatsoever  detriment 
the  other  states  might  receive  or  whatever  advan 
tages  the  nullifying  state  might  derive  "from  the 
interposition  of  its  uncontrollable  self-will,  styled 
sovereignty."  Such  a  right,  they  said,  would 
not  have  been  left  by  the  framers  of  the  Consti 
tution  to  be  assumed  by  implication.  The  mem 
bers  of  the  Calhoun  faction  were  great  sticklers 
for  a  strict  construction.  Very  good,  said  the 
Union  men,  "let  the  grant  be  shown  and  the 
controversy  ended."1 

The  Courier  could  account  for  such  a  theory 
coming    from    Calhoun    on    only    two    possible 

1  Courier,  October  18,  1832,  and  succeeding  issues  during  the 
next  two  months;  Mountaineer,  November  3. 


1 82     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

grounds.  If  he  were  sincere,  the  doctrine  might 
be  classed  among  the  aberrations  of  genius  from 
the  beaten  track  of  reason  and  common-sense. 
"It  is  the  property  of  great  minds  to  give  birth 
to  great  errors;  genius  is  proverbially  the  subject 
of  strange  hallucinations.  Great  men  have  had 
their  followers  amidst  the  wildest  vagaries  of  their 
philosophic  madness. "  So,  possibly,  had  it  been 
with  Calhoun;  misled  by  the  charms  of  hypothesis, 
he  had  ushered  nullification  into  existence  with  the 
public  sanction  of  his  name,  and  worshipers  were 
at  once  found  for  this  monstrous  creation  of  his 
political  frenzy.  But  perhaps  this  conclusion 
was  reached  in  a  spirit  of  too  great  charity.  The 
only  other  explanation,  then,  must  be  that  Calhoun 
saw  the  full  meaning  of  the  theory  and  stooped 
to  a  deception  to  accomplish  some  purpose  of 
unhallowed  ambition  or  misguided  patriotism. 
Was  there  not  reason  to  believe  that  he  knew  full 
well  that  nullification  was  essentially  revolutionary 
in  its  nature  and  that  it  was  nothing  more  nor 
less  that  disunion  in  disguise  ?r 

The  Union  men  also  answered  that  surely  a 
state  could  not  be  both  "in  and  out"  of  the  Union 
with  respect  to  certain  powers  clearly  delegated 

1  Courier,  October  27,  1832. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        183 

to  the  general  government  without  limitation; 
that  the  state  could  not  say  that  it  would  be 
"in"  the  Union  so  long  as  the  power  was  exercised 
to  a  certain  extent,  and  then  say  that  it  would  be 
"out"  if  the  power  were  exercised  beyond  that 
limit.1 

The  Courier  ran  a  series  of  speculations  on 
treason  which  caused  no  little  excitement  among 
Nullifiers.  The  editor  asserted  that  citizens  as 
individuals,  not  as  a  state,  owed  a  double  alle 
giance,  to  the  state  and  to  the  United  States,  and 
that  the  question  so  frequently  put  by  the  Nulli 
fiers  with  an  air  of  triumph,  "Can  a  sovereign 
state  commit  treason?"  was  an  idle  one;  for 
treason  was  an  offense  which  could  be  predicated 
of  individuals  only  and  had  no  application  what 
ever  to  communities.  He  said  further  that  a  state 
could  not,  unless  it  left  the  Union,  authorize  its 
citizens  to  make  war  against  the  United  States, 
without  subjecting  them  to  the  pains  and  penal 
ties  of  treason;  that  is,  that  state  interposition 
could  not  render  lawful  that  which  would  be 
treason  in  individuals;  that  the  citizens  of  every 
state  in  the  Union  were  also  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  and  that,  until  they  were  absolved  from 

1  Patriot,  February  and  March,  1832. 


184    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

their  allegiance  to  the  latter,  the  levying  of 
war  against  the  United  States,  whether  under 
individual  or  state  auspices,  would  amount  to 
treason  under  the  Constitution.1 

The  competency  of  a  state  convention  to  dis 
solve  the  connection  of  South  Carolina  with  the 
Union  was  not  denied  by  the  Union  men;  but 
the  power  of  such  a  convention  to  annul  a  law  of 
Congress,  they  argued,  could  not  be  sustained. 
Such  a  convention  by  assuming  judicial  functions, 
as  it  must  do  in  so  far  construing  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  as  to  pronounce  an  act  of 
Congress  contrary  to  that  instrument  and  there 
fore  not  binding  on  the  citizens  of  South  Carolina, 
would  arrogate  to  itself  a  right  not  given  to  it 
even  by  implication  or  deduced  from  analogy  or 
true  theory;  for  no  convention  was  competent 
to  release  the  citizen  from  his  allegiance  to  the 
federal  laws  "in  part.'7  It  was  within  the  power 
of  such  a  body  to  release  him  from  his  obligation 
to  obey  those  laws  in  toto,  as  well  as  the  great 
organic  law,  the  Constitution,  by  virtue  of  which 
they  were  passed.  Was  it  not  preposterous,  it 
was  asked,  to  confound  an  exercise  of  judicial 
power  with  the  exercise  of  popular  supreme 

1  Courier,  August  20,  1832. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature       185 

power?1  The  Union  men  insisted  that  their 
opponents  were  forced  to  admit  that  a  state  con 
vention  could  not  go  counter  to  the  federal  Con 
stitution,  and  yet  that  these  same  opponents  tried, 
in  a  most  amusing  manner,  to  justify  the  incom 
patible  power  of  a  state  convention  to  violate  the 
federal  Constitution  and  bind  the  citizens  of  the 
state  to  acquiesce  in  the  violation.  The  Union 
men  pronounced  the  contradiction  "too  pal 
pable  for  the  subtlest  power  of  sophistry  to  gloss 
over  or  disguise."2 

1  Patriot,  September  18,  1832. 

3  Courier,  November  15,  1832.  The  Mercury  and  the  Courier 
debated  this  question  back  and  forth  until  the  Courier  said:  "The 
Mercury  very  prudently  declines  the  further  prosecution  of  a  con 
troversy  in  which  it  had  involved  itself  in  an  inexplicable  paradox. 
A  Constitution  paramount  to  a  convention  and  yet  that  convention 
paramount  over  the  citizen  in  contravention  of  the  Constitution,  is 
not  a  matter  of  every  day  comprehension;  it  can  only  be  under 
stood  in  certain  phases  of  the  moon.  If  we  now  understand  the 
Mercury  aright,  a  state  in  convention  is  only  amenable  for  her  mis 
deeds  to  the  law  of  nations.  This  is  a  denial,  instead  of  an  admis 
sion  of  the  paramount  authority  of  the  federal  Constitution,  and  is 
merely  the  assertion  of  the  right  of  revolution  or  secession.  If  the 
convention  should  place  the  state  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Union,  there 
would  be  great  reason  in  the  argument  of  the  Mercury,  that  every 
citizen  would  be  bound  to  adhere  to  the  state  in  opposition  to  every 
other  power.  But  not  until  then.  If  that  is  the  intention  of  the 
Mercury  party,  then  was  the  Columbia  writer  very  near  the  truth 
when  he  proclaimed  that  the  Union  was  already  dissolved"  (Courier, 
November  17,  1832). 


1 86    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  Union  men  delighted  in  forecasting  the 
practical  operation  of  nullification  as  the  best 
means  of  showing  its  certain  result.1  In  the  first 
place,  a  state  convention  was  to  be  called.  This 
convention  was  to  declare  the  tariff  unconsti 
tutional  and  therefore  null  and  void.  The  legis 
lature  was  then  to  pass  an  act  to  carry  into  effect 
this  decree  of  the  convention.  Following  this, 
actions  of  trespass  would  be  commenced  against 
the  custom-house  officers  for  the  goods  imported. 
These  actions  would  be  tried  in  the  state  courts, 
and  when  the  verdicts  had  been  found  for  the 
importing  merchants,  the  sheriff  would  be  ordered 
to  enforce  the  verdicts  and  take  the  goods.  This 
would  be  the  operation  of  nullification.  Next 
they  examined  the  difficulties  with  which  it  was 
environed,  and  then  asked  the  people  to  decide 
whether  it  was  a  peaceful  and  efficient  remedy. 
Let  it  be  supposed  that  an  importing  merchant 
were  found  willing  to  commence  the  action  of 
trespass  and  incur  the  expenses  of  a  heavy  law 
suit,  with  deprivation  of  his  goods  for  a  twelve 
month;  also,  that  a  jury  were  found  which  would 

1  Mountaineer,  September  29,  1832.  Perry  Collection,  Vol.  IX, 
pamphlet  giving  a  speech  by  Joel  R.  Poinsett  at  a  public  meeting  at 
Seyle's,  Charleston,  October  5,  1832. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        187 

return  a  satisfactory  verdict;  then  the  case  would 
have  to  be  sent  up  to  the  federal  courts  for  adjudi 
cation,  inasmuch  as  the  validity  of  an  act  of 
Congress  was  questioned.  There  could  be  no 
doubt  that  the  federal  court  would  reverse  the 
verdict.  But  it  was  said  that  the  state  court 
would  violate  the  judiciary  act  and  refuse  to 
certify  the  case.  The  sheriff  would  then,  it  was 
affirmed,  take  the  goods  and  deliver  them  to  the 
merchant.  But  suppose  the  custom-house  officer, 
as  in  duty  bound,  would  not  give  up  the  goods 
until  the  duties  were  paid.  If  the  sheriff  should 
make  use  of  force,  the  custom  officer  would  also 
use  force  to  resist  him,  and  this  would  begin  a 
civil  war  in  Charleston. 

But  even  supposing  that  the  custom-house 
officer  would  give  up  the  goods  and  leave  his 
post,  and  that  the  port  of  Charleston  were  opened 
and  the  duties  ceased  to  be  levied  there;  if  the 
general  government  remained  passive,  the  whole 
foreign  trade  of  the  United  States  would  center 
there;  goods  would  pour  into  this  port  from  all 
the  manufacturing  nations  of  the  earth,  to  be 
exported  to  all  the  ports  of  the  neighboring  states, 
where  the  tariff  would  remain  in  force  and  the 
duties  consequently  would  be  higher.  But  how 


1 88    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

long  could  the  government  of  the  United  States 
permit  such  a  state  of  things  to  exist?  Could 
that  government,  deriving  its  revenues  chiefly 
from  duties  and  imports,  long  exist  under  such 
a  state  of  things  ?  Would  not  the  clamors  of  the 
other  states  for  relief  from  the  sufferings  occa 
sioned  by  the  loss  of  foreign  commerce  compel 
the  general  government  to  take  the  most  energetic 
measures  ?  As  the  most  effective  measure,  South 
Carolina  ports  would  be  blockaded.  This  could 
not  be  prevented,  for  South  Carolina  had  no  navy. 
Would  she  call  on  England  ?  Would  she  go  back 
to  her  former  colonial  vassalage  and  bow  to  the 
scepter  of  a  king  ?  But  England  would  not  incur 
the  displeasure  of  twenty-three  states  for  the 
favor  of  one;  she  would  not  involve  herself  in 
a  war  with  the  United  States  for  the  commerce 
of  South  Carolina.  There  was  no  need  to  carry 
the  argument  farther.  Let  it  be  as  it  might, 
either  the  result  at  last  was  conflict  of  arms 
or  the  remedy  was  worthless.  But,  to  go  one 
step  farther,  suppose  the  Union  were  broken; 
the  states  would  continue  separating  until  the 
more  wealthy  and  powerful  should  subdue 
the  poorer  and  weaker;  a  struggle  would  thus 
follow  which  must  terminate  in  the  establish- 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        189 

ment  of  despotic  governments  throughout  the 
continent. 

One  of  the  points  upon  which  the  State  Rights 
men  relied  to  demonstrate  that  South  Carolina 
was  justified  in  taking  extreme  measures  of 
redress  was  the  allegation  that,  because  of  the 
oppression  under  which  the  state  suffered,  she 
was  in  a  ruinous  condition  of  decay.  They 
declared  that  it  was  notorious  that  every  kind 
of  property  had  fallen  greatly  in  value;  that  all 
classes  of  her  citizens  were  embarrassed;  that 
South  Carolina's  commerce  was  expiring,  her 
agriculture  depressed,  the  spirit  of  enterprise 
gone;  that  emigration  was  alarmingly  increasing 
—in  short,  that  South  Carolina,  once  so  prosperous 
and  happy,  now  exhibited  the  most  melancholy 
evidences  of  a  general  decay.  And  why  was  this  ? 
It  had  all  arisen  from  an  artificial,  sectional,  and 
tyrannical  system  of  legislation,  by  which  the 
state  was  crippled  in  order  that  northern  manu 
factures  might  increase,  and  drained  of  her 
resources  in  order  that  the  West  might  be  pro 
vided  with  roads  and  canals.1 

There  was,  however,  abundant  testimony  con 
tradicting  the  statements  concerning  this  decay 

1  Mercury,  March  8,  1832. 


i  go    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

and  its  causes.  Long  editorials  asserted  the  pros 
perity  of  Charleston,  and  others  asserted  that  the 
fall  in  the  value  of  lands  in  the  state  was  due,  not 
to  the  tariff,  but  to  the  immense  and  extraor 
dinarily  fertile  area  made  available  in  the  south 
western  country,  which  was  draining  the  Southeast 
of  its  population  and  reducing  the  price  of  cot 
ton.1  In  support  of  his  assertion  of  prosperity, 
one  writer  said  that  there  had  been  more  luxuries 
imported  into  the  state  during  the  last  two  years 
than  ever  before;  that  more  money  was  being 
expended  upon  elections  and  the  vices  incident 
thereto.  Among  several  prosperous  planters 
whom  he  named  as  examples,  one  was  "a  zealous 
Nullifier  "  who  had  recently  complained  of  the  slow 
progress  of  the  railroad  which  was  being  built 
from  Charleston,  and  who,  when  it  was  suggested 
that  he  spur  on  the  work  by  hiring  out  to  the 
builders  a  hundred  of  his  slaves,  replied  that  it 
would  make  the  difference  of  $20,000  in  his 
income.  The  railroad  contractors  would  have 
given  him  $12,000;  he  must  therefore  have  made 
from  his  plantations  $320  net  to  the  hand.  To 

1  Gazette,  August  22,  1832;  Mountaineer,  September  22.  Niks' 
Register,  December  i,  printed  the  speech  by  Joel  R.  Poinsett,  Octo 
ber  5. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        191 

the  writer,  the  very  fact  that  the  railroad  con 
tractors  were  offering  to  pay  $120  per  hand  per 
year,  payable  monthly,  and  could  not  procure 
them,  was  sufficient  to  prove  the  fallacy  of  the 
assertion  that  the  people  were  not  able  to  live 
upon  the  present  produce  of  their  labor.1 

It  was  admitted  by  the  Union  men  that  the 
South  suffered  somewhat  under  the  tariff,  but 
they  thought  that  the  evils  thus  suffered  were 
light  when  compared  with  those  brought  on  by 
the  continued  agitation  in  which  the  state  was  kept 
by  the  advocates  of  nullification.  Foreign  mer 
chants,  they  said,  would  not  send  their  goods  to 
South  Carolina  at  such  a  time;  real  estate  was 
of  no  exchangeable  value;  peaceable  citizens  left 
for  other  states;  and  society  in  general  was  dis 
rupted.3 

1  Courier,  April  26,  1832. 

2  Niles'  Register,  December  i,  1832,  speech  by  Joel  R.  Poinsett, 
October  5.     The  Courier  published  a  letter  from  a  commercial  house 
"of  high  respectability"  in  New  York,  on  December  8,  showing  the 
"bad  commercial  effects  of  the  prevailing  madness  of  South  Carolina 
on  Charleston."     It  was  no  longer  considered  safe,  the  writer  said, 
to  do  business  in  Charleston;   he  canceled  all  orders  for  cotton  and 
rice  not  already  executed,  and  asserted  that  many  houses  were  trans 
ferring  orders  from  Charleston  to  Savannah,  Mobile,  and  New  Orleans 
(Niles'  Register,  January  5,  1833). 

On  the  other  hand,  a  report  of  a  meeting  of  Columbia  merchants 
stated,  in  contradiction  to  rumors,  that  they  did  not  find  any 


1 92     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

One  editor,  in  commenting  on  the  attribution 
of  the  North's  prosperity  and  the  South Js  decline 
to  the  tariff,  was  bold  enough  to  suggest  that,  if 
such  a  difference  existed,  it  might  be  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  northern  people  were  an  industrious, 
frugal,  and  economical  people,  while  the  citizens 
of  the  South  were,  on  the  contrary,  idle,  extrava 
gant,  and  uncalculating  in  the  management  of  their 
business.  He  would  not  admit,  however,  that 
the  condition  was  as  deplorable  as  the  Nullifiers 
would  have  liked  to  make  the  people  believe,  for 
provisions  and  necessities  of  life  were  cheaper, 
and  the  people  were  living  more  plentifully, 
than  ever  before.  It  was  true  that  they  could 
not  make  as  much  money  as  formerly,  but 
one  dollar  would  purchase  as  much  as  two 
would  fifteen  years  before,  when  the  pros- 
embarrassment  in  credit  on  account  of  the  political  situation, 
either  among  the  wholesale  merchants  of  South  Carolina  or  neigh 
boring  states,  or  among  those  of  Europe  (Messenger,  January  9, 
1833)- 

As  for  Charleston  losing  her  commerce,  or  rather,  not  advancing 
so  rapidly  as  northern  ports,  she  simply  could  not  compete  with  the 
northern  commercial  ports.  The  merchants  themselves  recognized 
this,  and  in  an  attempt  to  revive  commerce  investigated  a  project 
to  establish  a  line  of  ships  for  direct  trade  with  Great  Britain  and 
Havre.  A  chance  was  here  presented  for  a  revival  of  the  lan 
guishing  art  of  shipbuilding  in  Charleston,  for  a  Charleston  firm 
was  figuring  on  the  ships  (Courier,  June  i,  1831). 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        193 

parity  of  the  region  was  said  to  have  been  much 
greater.1 

The  State  Rights  and  Free  Trade  associations 
neglected  no  opportunity  that  could  furnish 
publicity  for  their  doctrines.  They  secured  con 
trol  of  Miller's,  Planters',  and  Merchants'  Almanac 
for  Carolina  and  Georgia  for  the  year  1832  and  the 
year  following.2  They  changed  its  name  to  the 
States  Rights  and  Free  Trade  Almanac,  and 
announced  on  its  title-page  that  it  contained  "the 
usual  astronomical  calculations  and  local  infor 
mation,  together  with  moral  and  political  maxims 
and  extracts."  Upon  nearly  every  page  of  the 
statistical  section  appeared  some  short  sentence 
or  paragraph  asserting  in  pointed  style  the  evils 

1  Mountaineer,  September  22,  December  i,  1832.  Niles'  Register, 
March  16,  1833,  ironically  commenting  on  the  "dreadful  suffering 
in  South  Carolina,"  noticed  that  the  Charleston  races  had  been 
uncommonly  well  attended,  with  great  display  of  fashion  and  wealth; 
and  the  Mercury  of  March  i,  1833,  announced  that  $35,000  had  just 
been  refused  for  the  horse  "Bertrand,"  though  that  sum  was  exactly 
ten  times  as  much  as  was  given  for  him  by  his  owner.  Niles'  Register 
remarked  "  'Taxed  ....  40  bales  of  the  hundred,'  and  yet  able  to 
pay  $35,000  for  a  horse!"  The  Register  further  noticed  that  "the 
friends  of  Julia,  by  Bertrand,  dam  Transport,"  etc.,  had  challenged 
a  race  against  her  for  $10,000,  not  excepting  any  horse  in  the  United 
States. 


almanac  from  1828  to  1861. 


The  Charleston  Library  Association  has  a  complete  file  of  this  '/I/  {„ 


194    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

of  the  tariff  and  the  paramount  sovereignty  of 
the  state.  There  were  added  several  pages  of 
tables  showing  the  duties  on  articles  of  daily 
consumption,  and  devices  to  prove  that  the  tariff 
in  effect  reduced  the  price  of  cotton  to  the  planter 
by  about  one-half.  In  fact,  the  almanac  this  year 
was  really  a  State  Rights  pamphlet,  with  the 
usual  almanac  material  interspersed  among  state 
ments  of  the  tenets  of  the  party.  Thus  when  a 
planter,  mechanic,  or  merchant  consulted  the 
almanac  to  learn  when  to  plant  cabbages,  how  to 
cure  malaria,  when  boats  would  leave,  or  who  were 
the  officers  of  a  certain  bank,  he  would  be  greeted 
with  reminders  of  the  State  Rights  doctrine. 
The  various  State  Rights  associations  held  meet 
ings  regularly  every  month  and  many  special  ones 
when  occasion  warranted  calling  them.  Their 
orators  harangued  the  members  at  great  length 
and  with  ever-increasing  vigor  and  spirit. 
Addresses  in  great  numbers  were  issued  to  the 
people  and  nearly  every  meeting  passed  pompous 
resolutions  for  publication.1  In  some  places  joint 
debates  were  held.  Sometimes  a  meeting  called 

1  Mercury,  January  14,  February  15,  April  4,  16,  28,  June  19,  28, 
July  2,  6,  21,  25,  31,  October  13,  1832;  Messenger,  January  25, 
March  7,  April  n,  June  27,  July  u,  19;  Mountaineer,  September  i. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        195 

by  one  party  would  be  attended  and  overpowered 
by  the  opposition.  Again,  if  an  apparently  non- 
partisan  meeting  was  called,  it  would  break  up 
into  two  meetings  before  much  business  had  been 
transacted.1 

In  some  localities  the  State  Rights  men  seemed 
to  be  prepared  to  go  faster  than  the  main  body  of 
the  party.  As  early  as  April  some  went  so  far 
as  to  propose  a  spontaneous  election  of  delegates 
to  a  convention  at  once,  without  waiting  for  the 
adjournment  of  Congress  or  the  meeting  of  an 
extra  session  of  the  state  legislature.  The  party 
as  a  whole  recognized  that  this  would  be  uncon 
stitutional,  and  instead  promoted  local  petitioning 
to  the  legislature  for  a  convention  and  general 
campaigning  for  the  October  elections  of  assembly 
men.  The  convention  became  ostensibly  the 
issue  again,  but  most  State  Rights  men  meant  by 
it  a  convention  for  nullification  and  nothing  else. 
Others  there  were,  however,  who  wanted  the  ques 
tion  to  be  left  freely  and  openly  to  an  unpledged 
convention,  to  the  decision  of  which,  whether  for 
nullification,  a  southern  convention,  or  unqualified 
submission,  every  citizen  should  yield  assent.2 

1  Messenger,  August  29,  September  5,  12,  26,  1832. 

2  Mercury •,  April  30,  July  31,  1832;  Messenger,  August  i,  22. 


196    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  Union  party  was  not  to  be  excelled.  It, 
too,  held  numerous  meetings,  issued  addresses, 
held  celebrations  when  occasion  warranted,  gave 
dinners  and  barbecues,  and  listened  to  long 
addresses  by  its  orators.  In  Charleston,  since 
the  old  societies  (the  '76  Association,  the  Cin 
cinnati  Society,  the  Revolutionary  Society)  had 
come  to  be  controlled  by  the  Nullifiers,  the  Union 
men  formed  a  new  one,  which  they  named  the 
Washington  Society.1 

When  any  person  went  over  from  one  party 
to  the  other,  the  party  which  gained  the  recruit 
heralded  the  fact  over  the  state  as  a  sign  of  the 
continued  growth  of  its  numbers.  Each  side 
was  prone  to  claim  all  the  intelligence,  stability, 
virtue,  and  patriotism  of  the  state,  though  at 
least  one  editor  believed  that  the  most  talented, 
patriotic,  and  virtuous  sons  of  Carolina  were  about 
equally  divided  between  the  two  parties.  Where 
there  were  so  many  distinguished  and  honorable 
persons — ex-governors,  judges,  members  of  Con 
gress,  and  distinguished  members  of  the  legis 
lature — to  be  found  in  the  ranks  of  each  party,  it 

1  Courier,  June  14,  July  6,  August  25,  September  12,  25,  27, 
October  2,  1832;  Messenger,  January  25,  September  12,  26;  Journal, 
August  18;  Mountaineer,  September  15. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        197 

was  surely  unwarranted  for  either  party  to  cast 
imputations  on  the  other.1 

Early  in  the  year  the  Union  party  began  to 
suggest  that,  in  case  the  Clay  tariff  prevailed, 
the  entire  South  should  act.  The  Unionists  would 
support  a  state  convention  provided  that  it  would 
only  endeavor  to  promote  a  southern  convention, 
for  only  such  action  would  be  effective.  The 
Unionists  believed  that,  had  the  doctrine  of  nulli 
fication  never  been  ushered  in,  the  South,  under 
the  common  feeling  of  a  common  wrong,  would 
long  since  have  acted  in  concert  and  obtained  by 
a  dignified  but  determined  course  that  redress 
which  the  intemperate  efforts  of  South  Carolina 
had  almost  indefinitely  postponed.  Until  South 
Carolina  abandoned  her  delusion  and  the  South 
met  in  convention,  no  success  could  be  gained.2 

When  General  James  Blair,  a  prominent  Union 
man,  declared  that  unless  the  present  session  of 
Congress  should  relax  the  system  of  injustice  of 
which  the  South  complained,  it  would  be  advisable 
for  the  complaining  states  to  meet  hi  solemn  con 
ference  on  the  subject  and  make  a  concerted 
appeal  to  the  justice  of  the  general  government, 

1  Mountaineer,  March  17,  April  21,  1832. 

2  Gazette,  March  7,  April  17,  1832. 


1 98    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

and  that,  if  that  appeal  should  be  disregarded, 
they  ought  to  consider  the  grave  question  whether 
actual  secession  would  be  preferable  to  a  longer 
continued  endurance,  the  Nullification  party 
seized  upon  this  as  an  occasion  to  assert  that  the 
Unionists  were  the  ones  who  were  really  advo 
cating  secession  and  the  breaking  up  of  the  Union, 
while  they,  the  Nullifiers,  were  the  true  lovers  of 
the  Union,  anxious  to  preserve  it,  and  prepared 
with  a  plan  which  would  do  so.1  The  Union 
presses  justly  ridiculed  this  attempt  to  shift  the 
charge  of  secession. 

The  Nullifiers  also  argued  against  a  southern 
convention  on  the  ground  that  it  would  violate 
the  constitutional  prohibition  of  compacts  between 
states.  The  Union  men  answered  this  objection 
by  pointing  out  what  would  probably  be  the 
character  and  course  of  such  a  southern  con 
vention.  It  would  assemble  for  deliberation  as 
to  the  best  mode  of  effecting  a  repeal  of  the  tariff 
act;  and  it  would  apprise  the  tariff  states  of  the 
determination  of  the  anti-tariff  members  of  the 
Union  to  withdraw  from  the  compact  and  form 

1  Blair  seems  to  be  given  credit  for  the  suggestion  of  a  southern 
convention  (Journal,  April  28,  1832;  Gazette,  March  7;  Mountaineer, 
May  5;  Mercury,  May  16). 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        199 

a  separate  confederacy  should  the  obnoxious 
measure  not  be  repealed  within  a  given  period. 
There  would  be  no  compact,  treaty,  or  instrument 
of  alliance  of  any  kind  attending  this  first  stage 
of  the  proceedings.  If  the  tariff  states  should 
disregard  this  plain  warning,  then  the  very  first 
proceedings  at  a  subsequent  southern  convention 
would  be  a  solemn  act  of  separation.  Thus  far, 
accordingly,  there  was  nothing  to  be  adopted  in 
the  form  of  a  compact,  treaty,  or  agreement. 
Such  an  instrument,  declaring  the  mutual  duties 
and  obligations  of  the  contracting  parties,  in  case 
coercion  were  attempted,  would  be  the  necessary 
accompaniment  of  the  act  of  separation  and  not 
a  measure  preceding  it.1 

Langdon  Cheves,  who  was  for  a  time  claimed 
by  both  parties,  came  out  in  favor  of  the  Union 
ists  on  this  proposal.  Cheves  believed  that  the 
southern  states  could  constitutionally  meet  in 
convention  to  deliberate,  if  not  to  act.  He 
believed,  moreover,  that  a  union  of  the  aggrieved 
states  and  people  was  the  only  safe  or  hopeful 
measure  of  redress.  The  condition  of  party 
division  in  South  Carolina  appeared  to  him  an 

1  Mercury,  May  4,  1832;  Messenger,  May  16;  Patriot,  May  4; 
Journal,  May  12. 


200    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

unfortunate  development  for  which  there  was 
no  necessity.  Rashness,  excitement,  and  fanatical 
zeal  for  the  welfare  of  the  state  and  section  had 
caused  both  parties  to  assume  positions  which 
neither  would  naturally  have  taken;  the  result 
was  that  the  menace  of  each  was  greatly  exag 
gerated  in  the  eyes  of  the  other.  The  Union  was 
in  no  real  danger  from  the  State  Rights  party,  he 
believed,  unless  the  Union  party  should  rely  solely 
upon  a  foolish  appeal  to  affection  for  the  Union 
and  should  propose  no  active  measure  of  redress; 
by  moderation  and  wisdom  it  should  endeavor  to 
check  the  too  great  zeal  of  the  State  Rights  party, 
instead  of  denouncing  its  motives.  Too  long 
had  one  portion  of  the  people  been  exclusively 
engaged  in  pushing  forward  the  plan  of  nulli 
fication,  and  the  other  in  the  contemplation  of  its 
dangers.  The  proposal  for  a  southern  conven 
tion,  he  believed,  was  one  which  might  earlier 
have  united  both  parties,  and  it  might  even  yet 
unite  the  people  of  the  state,  though  he  feared  it 
had  come  too  late.  In  the  hope  that  it  would 
unite  the  people  sufficiently  to  avert  separate 
action,  he  heartily  supported  it.  The  strongest 
argument  for  a  southern  convention  was,  to  his 
mind,  the  tendency  it  would  have,  by  reason  of 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        201 

the  moral  force  of  united  counsels  and  resolves, 
to  effect  the  redress  desired  and  thereby  prevent 
violence,  secession,  and  disunion.1 

The  State  Rights  men  objected  that  the  Union 
men  were  talking  about  a  southern  convention 
merely  to  gain  time,  to  divert  the  attention  of  the 
people,  and  to  prevent  the  state  from  acting. 
It  would  lead  to  unqualified  submission  to  the 
tariff,  and  both  Congress  and  the  North  would  at 
once  recognize  the  adoption  of  the  southern  con 
vention  plan  as  a  surrender.2 

The  Union  meetings  began  so  universally  to 
approve  of  the  southern  convention  plan  that 
by  the  middle  of  May  it  was  hailed  as  the  official 
platform  of  the  Union  party.  Then  it  was  soon 
decided  to  have  a  Union  party  convention  at 
Columbia  in  September  to  consider  the  expedi 
ency  of  a  southern  convention,  in  case  Congress 
should  adjourn  without  passing  a  satisfactory 
tariff  law.  Union  meetings  at  various  places  be 
gan  to  appoint  delegates  to  the  party  convention. 
When  this  procedure  continued  after  the  Unionists 
had  largely  professed  satisfaction  with  the  Adams 

1  Pamphlet  containing  letters  by  Langdon  Cheves  to  two  com 
mittees  in  charge  of  dinners  given  in  honor  of  James  Blair  in  August, 
1832,  in  Sumter  and  Kershaw  districts. 

3  Mercury,  May  5,  June  14,  1832;  Messenger,  June  20. 


202     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

tariff  law,  the  State  Rights  men  asked  if  they 
thought  that  a  southern  convention  should  resist 
an  act  which  they  considered  satisfactory,  or 
should  secede  from  the  Union  because  "a  great 
bill  of  compromise,"  as  the  Union  men  called  it, 
had  been  passed.  They  declared  it  simply  a 
scheme  to  put  down  nullification.1 

The  Union  party  convention  met  at  Columbia 
on  September  10.  It  was  attended  by  about  160 
delegates  from  the  various  districts  and  parishes.2 
As  a  result  of  their  deliberations,  an  address  and  a 
set  of  resolutions  were  adopted.  They  denounced 
nullification,  but  expressed  a  readiness  to  unite 
with  the  State  Rights  party  in  any  constitutional 
resistance  to  the  tariff.  In  case  of  concurrence 
on  the  part  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Georgia, 
Tennessee,  Alabama,  and  Mississippi,  they  pro 
posed  a  convention  of  the  "citizens"  of  those 
states,  to  be  elected  by  districts;  the  Columbia 
meeting  pledged  itself  to  abide  by  the  measures 
decided  upon  by  such  a  convention,  and  nine  of 
the  most  distinguished  men  of  the  party  were  ap 
pointed  a  committee  to  correspond  with  and  act 

1  Mercury,  May  14,  August  14,  1832;  Courier,  June  14. 

2  There  were  from  i  to  18,  with  an  average  of  6,  from  each  district 
or  parish  (Courier,  September  13,  1832). 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature       203 

as  delegates  to  the  legislatures  of  the  southern 
states,  to  solicit  co-operation  in  the  efforts  to 
call  a  southern  convention.1 


MAP  V. — Popular  vote  on  state  convention,  1832 

Again  the  city  campaign  in  Charleston  was  to 
serve  as  a  curtain-raiser  for  the  state  election 
contest,  and  both  sides  made  great  efforts  to  win. 

1  Courier,  September  15,  1832;  Mountaineer,  September  22. 
The  men  appointed  were  Judge  Daniel  E.  Huger  and  Joel  R.  Poin- 
sett,  to  go  to  Virginia  and  North  Carolina;  Governor  Middleton  and 
Mr.  King,  to  go  to  Tennessee ;  Judges  Joseph  Johnson  and  J.  B .  O'Neall, 
to  go  to  Georgia;  Judge  William  Smith,  Judge  J.  P.  Richardson,  and 
Mr.  Creswell,  to  go  to  Alabama  and  Mississippi. 


204     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 


The  State  Rights  party  again  elected  its  whole 
ticket,  by  a  majority  of  about  160,  and  it  immedi 
ately  interpreted  this  to  mean  that  Charleston 
had  unequivocally  and  emphatically  shown  that 
"the  spirit  of  nullification'7  was  "fixed  and 


Legislature  ol  1832.  Figure  on 
left  indicates  senators,  on 
right,  representatives.  Those 

marked  D.    Thus,  CD-I  [T] 

convention.one  representative 
for  and  one  against 


MAP  VI. — Legislature  of  1832,  for  and  against  convention 

settled."     It  promptly  held  a   "civic  festival" 
in  honor  of  the  victory.1 

During  this  campaign  an  incident  occurred 
which  throws  some  light  upon  the  tactics  used. 
One  Peter  J.  Staunton  met  his  death,  so  the  jury 

1  Mercury,  September  i,  5,  7,  1832. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature       205 

of  inquest  held,  by  leaping  from  a  third-story 
window  of  a  house  on  Queen  street  in  which  he 
was  forcibly  detained.  The  Mercury  charged 
that  he  was  being  held  there  with  a  number  of 
other  prisoners,  to  be  kept  intoxicated  until  after 
the  election,  and  that  after  the  accident  the  Union 
party  held  a  meeting  and  sent  a  committee  to  the 
executive  committee  of  the  State  Rights  party 
to  arrange  an  exchange  of  prisoners;  but  the 
latter  had  no  such  persons  and  those  held  by  the 
Union  party  were  released.  Similar  charges, 
however,  came  from  the  other  side.1 

1  Mercury,  September  3,  1832.  The  next  day  the  Patriot  denied 
the  story;  the  Mercury  editor  then  backed  down  somewhat,  saying 
that  he  had  printed  the  story  as  told  to  him  by  citizens  of  the  highest 
character.  At  any  rate  there  seems  no  doubt  that,  though  persons 
may  not  have  been  actually  kidnaped  and  held  prisoners,  they  were 
kept  under  the  influence  of  alcohol,  that  they  might  vote  as  their 
trainers  desired.  Conditions  were  so  bad  that  after  the  election 
both  parties  united  in  an  effort  to  purify  the  elections.  Committees 
were  appointed  by  both  parties  to  act  together  and  draw  up  an  agree 
ment  to  put  down  election  abuses  (Mercury,  September  8,  13,  15). 
The  agreement  evidently  was  not  kept  in  the  following  election,  for 
a  gentleman  in  Charleston  wrote  on  October  12,  1832:  ".  .  .  .  the 
Union  party  were  defeated  in  Charleston  by  about  130  majority. 
The  fact  is,  the  Union  party  is  the  strongest  and  most  respectable, 
but  the  Nullies  are  the  rabble,  and  are,  however,  headed  by  some 
men  of  first  rate  abilities. 

"For  weeks  prior  to  the  election  we  had  'all  sorts  of  times'  here. 

Each  party  had  public  meetings  and  suppers  every  night On 

Saturday  our  party  had  another  meeting  and  supper,  and  as  some  of 


206     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Though  defeated  in  the  city  election,  the  Union 
party  tried  bravely  to  rally  for  the  state  election,1 
but  it  was  doomed  to  disappointment.  The 
returns  showed  that  the  state  had  declared  for 
a  state  convention;  and  a  convention,  with  the 
State  Rights  men  in  control,  seemed  to  the  Union 
men  to  spell  nullification;  and  nullification  meant 
war  and  the  beginning  of  a  series  of  disasters 
which  would  destroy  South  Carolina.  Never 
theless,  most  of  the  Unionists  felt  in  duty  bound 

them  were  returning  they  were  attacked  with  clubs,  etc.,  by  a  mob 
of  Nullifiers.  The  Union  men,  not  dreaming  of  an  attack,  were 
altogether  unprepared,  but  they  soon  rallied,  and  by  breaking  off 
the  branches  of  a  number  of  trees  in  the  neighborhood,  declared 
themselves  ready  for  battle,  but  through  the  persuasions  of  the 
leading  men  of  both  parties,  all  were  induced  to  retire  home. 

"During  the  whole  of  Sunday  both  parties  kept  open  houses  and 
the  Union  party  had  a  meeting  in  consequence  of  hearing  that  the 
Nullifiers  had  27  of  our  men  drunk  and  locked  up.  A  committee  was 
dispatched  to  them,  giving  them  till  five  o'clock  to  release  their 
prisoners,  and  threatening,  if  they  did  not,  that  the  house  in  which 
they  were  confined  should  be  razed  to  the  ground.  Hooks,  etc.,  were 
deliberately  procured  for  the  purpose,  and  the  Nullifiers,  seeing  our 
determination,  gave  up  the  miserable  men  they  had  captured" 
(Niks'  Register,  November  24,  1832). 

The  Charleston  Patriot  of  September  10  told  of  a  mob  of  Nulli 
fiers  who,  led  by  one  Winges,  attacked  the  home  of  a  Union  man, 
John  Schachte,  and  threatened  to  pull  it  down.  A  shot  was  fired 
and  Winges  was  wounded  (Niks'  Register,  October  27). 

1  Patriot,  September  5,  1832;  Gazette,  September  5;  Courier, 
September  5. 


The  Nullifiers  Capture  the  Legislature        207 

to  stand  by  the  state.  The  only  consolation  they 
had  was  the  fact  that  the  awful  responsibility  was 
not  upon  themselves.1  Such  was  the  attitude  of 
the  Union  men  immediately  after  the  election, 
when  they  interpreted  the  State  Rights  victory 
to  mean  an  immediate  clash  with  the  United 
States  government.  They  would  support  the 
state  in  revolution.  Later,  however,  when  they 
realized  that  the  state  was  not  to  revolt  openly, 
but  that  nullification  was  to  be  tried,  they  deter 
mined  not  to  support  such  a  step. 

A  plot  of  the  vote  shows  clearly  that  there  was 
no  marked  sectionalism  in  the  vote.  The  sup 
porters  of  each  party  were  distributed  nearly 
equally  in  both  the  interior  and  the  coastal 
sections.2 

1  Gazette,  October  i,  1832;    Mountaineer,  October  13;    Journal, 
October  20. 

2  See  Maps  V  and  VI  and  p.  107,  n.  3. 


CHAPTER  VI 
NULLIFICATION  ADOPTED  (1832) 

Immediately  after  the  result  of  the  election  was 
known,  Governor  Hamilton  issued  a  proclamation 
for  an  extra  session  of  the  legislature  to  convene 
on  October  22.  The  plan  was  to  have  the  conven 
tion  meet  and  act  before  Congress  should  meet.1 
Some  of  the  Union  papers  soon  questioned  the 
constitutional  right  of  the  governor  to  call  the 
extra  session,  and  of  the  newly  elected  members  to 
attend.  The  governor  took  the  precaution  of 
getting  unofficial  advisory  opinions  of  the  judges 
of  the  court  of  appeals;  they  agreed  unanimously 
that  the  newly  elected  members  might  be  con 
vened.  Since  a  majority  of  these  judges  were  of 
the  Union  party,  the  State  Rights  men  concluded 
that  those  who  raised  the  objection  did  so  simply 
to  cause  as  much  embarrassment  as  possible, 
now  that  it  was  ascertained  that  the  state 
would  act.2 

1  Messenger,  October  10,  1832. 

2  Mercury,   October    12,    1832;     Courier,   October    15;     Gazette, 
October  20;   Messenger,  October  24. 

208 


Nullification  Adopted  209 

The  legislature  convened  on  October  22,  and 
an  act  was  passed  on  October  25  calling  for  a  con 
vention  to  meet  on  the  third  Monday  in  Novem 
ber.  Delegates  were  to  be  elected  on  the  second 
Monday  and  Tuesday  in  November,  and  each 
election  district  was  to  elect  delegates  in  number 
equal  to  its  state  senators  and  representatives. 
The  bill  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  96  to  25,  and 
the  senate  by  a  vote  of  31  to  13,  just  as  was  pre 
dicted  from  the  election  returns.  The  legislature 
adjourned  at  once,  postponing  all  other  business  to 
its  regular  meeting  at  the  end  of  November,  when 
it  could  pass  such  acts  as  the  convention  should 
recommend.  The  action  was  unhesitating,  and 
apparently  an  early  adjustment  of  the  difficulty 
was  not  expected,  for  the  attempt  was  made  to 
provide  for  such  contingencies  as  might  arise 
from  the  continuation  of  the  convention  for  one 
year.1 

After  the  Nullifiers  had  captured  the  legislature 
by  a  majority  sufficient  to  call  a  convention,  they 
suggested  that  the  Union  party  should  abandon 
all  opposition.  The  Mountaineer  at  once  declared 
that  such  a  request  was  inconsistent  on  the  part  of 

1  Mountaineer,  October  27,  November  3,  1832;  Mercury,  October 
27;  Niles'  Register,  November  3. 


210    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

the  Nullifiers,  who  were  reminded  that  hitherto 
their  doctrine  had  been  that  the  minority  had 
rights  and  that  governments  were  established 
for  the  protection  of  minorities.1  The  Union 
members  of  the  legislature,  the  Union  State  Rights 
and  Jackson  party,  as  they  sometimes  called  them 
selves,  held  a  caucus  in  Columbia  and  asked  the 
party  men  in  each  district  to  endeavor  still  to  save 
the  country  by  supporting  a  Union  ticket  for 
delegates  to  the  convention.  The  Mountaineer 
urged  the  Union  men  in  those  districts  where  they 
had  a  majority  to  elect  delegates,  and  in  the  doubt 
ful  ones  not  to  give  up  the  contest  too  soon.  It 
also  recommended  that  the  leading  men  of  the 
Union  party  be  sent  to  the  convention  from  the 
districts  irrespective  of  their  residence,  so  that 
the  party  would  be  represented  by  as  much  talent 
and  weight  of  character  as  possible.  Many  now 
seemed  to  think  that  nothing  would  be  done  by  the 
convention  until  after  another  session  of  Congress 
and  that  in  the  meantime  a  few  strong  men  could 
do  much  to  undeceive  the  people.  In  Charleston, 
however,  the  Union  party  central  committee 
decided  to  offer  no  candidates.  In  some  other 
districts  there  was  no  opposition  to  the  State 

1  Mountaineer,  October  20,  1832. 


Nullification  Adopted  211 

Rights  tickets,  but  in  a  few  the  Unionists  elected 
their  men.1 

The  question  was  soon  raised  as  to  what  position 
the  Union  men  would  assume  toward  the  con 
vention;  they  gave  an  immediate  and  unequivocal 
answer,  which  was  in  consonance  with  the  doctrines 
to  which  they  had  clung.  In  the  first  place,  they 
wanted  it  clearly  understood  that  they  would  not 
directly  or  indirectly  sanction  any  act  of  nullifica 
tion  passed  by  the  legislature  or  the  convention. 
Suppose  the  federal  and  state  governments  should 
come  into  forcible  and  violent  collision,  which 
must  the  citizen  obey?  The  Union  men  an 
nounced  that  when  South  Carolina  should  think 
proper  to  reclaim  their  allegiance  by  an  act  of 
secession,  they  must  either  obey  the  behest  of  her 
sovereign  will  or  expatriate  themselves;  but  that, 
so  long  as  South  Carolina  admitted  the  Constitu 
tion  and  laws  of  the  United  States  to  be  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,  anything  in  her  own 
constitution  and  laws  to  the  contrary  notwith 
standing,  they  would  be  constrained  to  uphold  the 
paramount  authority  of  the  Constitution  and  laws 

1  Mountaineer,  October  27,  November  3,  17,  1832;  Messenger, 
November  14;  Mercury,  November  i,  10;  Courier,  October  29; 
Niks'  Register,  November  10. 


212    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

of  the  Union.  Nullification  was  to  them  incom 
patible  with  the  federal  Constitution  and  utterly  at 
war  with  the  very  nature  of  the  government,  fatal 
to  the  uniformity  of  its  operation,  destructive 
of  its  efficiency,  and  calculated  to  produce  irre 
mediable  anarchy  and  confusion.  They  must 
therefore  oppose  it.1 

The  State  Rights  party  then  claimed  that  the 
Union  leaders  had  pledged  themselves  to  go  with 
the  state  when  she  should  decide  to  nullify;  the 
Union  men  answered  that  they  had  given  no  such 
promise,  but  had  pledged  themselves  to  go  with 
the  state  if  she  actually  seceded  from  the  Union. 
But  suppose  South  Carolina,  through  the  State 
Rights  majority,  should  attempt  to  force  the 
Union  minority  by  pains  and  penalties  to  disobey 
the  laws  of  the  United  States  before  she  had 
absolved  her  citizens  from  their  allegiance  to  the 
Union.  The  Union  men  protested  that  she  would 
be  placing  her  sons  between  treason  on  the  one 
hand  and  confiscation  on  the  other,  and  that  such 
a  course  would  inevitably  lead  to  a  civil  war. 

On  November  19  the  convention  met  at  Colum 
bia  and  within  a  few  days  adopted  a  series  of 
important  documents  as  the  expression  of  the 

1  Mountaineer,  October  27,  1832;  Courier,  November  3. 


Nullification  Adopted  213 

sovereign  will  of  the  state.1  The  report  of  the 
"Committee  of  Twenty-one/'  written  by  Robert 
Y.  Hayne,  reviewed  the  history  of  the  tariff  and 
gave  the  grounds  upon  which  its  constitutionality 
was  contested;  it  related  how,  in  spite  of  the 
South  Carolina  protests,  Congress  had  deliberately 
passed  an  act  which  removed  the  revenue  duties 
and  retained  the  purely  protective  ones.  It  de 
clared  South  Carolina  to  be  a  sovereign  state, 
recognizing  "no  tribunal  upon  earth  as  above  her 
authority";  true,  she  had  entered  into  a  "solemn 

1  Courier,  November  28,  1832;  Journal  of  the  Convention  of 
the  People  of  South  Carolina  assembled  at  Columbia,  November  19, 
1832,  and  again  March  u,  1833  (published  in  pamphlet  form); 
see  also  22d  Congress,  2d  session,  Document  No.  45  of  the  House; 
message  of  the  President  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  with  14  accom 
panying  documents,  January  16,  1833;  (i)  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Twenty-one  to  the  convention  of  South  Carolina;  (2)  an  ordinance 
of  the  convention  to  nullify  certain  acts  of  Congress;  (3)  address  of 
the  convention  to  the  people  of  South  Carolina;  (4)  address  of  the 
convention  to  the  people  of  the  United  States;  (5)  message  of 
Governor  Hamilton  to  the  legislature  of  South  Carolina;  (6)  inaugural 
address  of  Governor  Hayne  to  the  legislature;  (7)  an  act  to  carry 
the  ordinance,  in  part,  into  effect,  called  the  replevin  act;  (8)  an  act 
to  provide  for  the  security  and  protection  of  South  Carolina;  (9)  an 
act  concerning  the  oath  required  by  the  ordinance;  ( 10)  proclamation 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States;  (n)  instructions  of  Secretary 
McLane  to  the  collector  of  the  customs  at  Charleston;  (12)  letter 
of  Secretary  McLane  to  the  United  States  district  attorney  at 
Charleston;  (13)  proclamation  by  the  governor  of  South  Carolina; 
(14)  military  orders  of  the  adjutant-general  and  captain  of  the 
Richland  Volunteers. 


214  Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

compact  of  Union  with  other  sovereign  states/' 
but  she  claimed  and  would  exercise  the  right  to 
determine  the  extent  of  her  obligations  under  that 
compact,  and  would  not  allow  any  other  power 
to  exercise  the  right  for  her.  A  great  deal  was 
said  about  " liberty"  and  "slavery,"  and  the 
doctrines  promulgated  by  Virginia  and  Kentucky 
in  1798  were  cited  as  authority  sufficient  to 
justify  the  position  that  South  Carolina  was  now 
assuming. 

The  ordinance,  drawn  up  by  Chancellor  William 
Harper,  declared  the  tariff  acts  of  1828  and  1832 
to  be  null  and  void.  It  then  called  upon  the 
legislature  to  pass  such  acts  as  were  needed  to 
carry  the  ordinance  into  effect,  and  to  prevent 
the  enforcement  of  the  tariff  acts  within  South 
Carolina.  It  asserted  that  in  no  case  of  law 
or  equity  in  the  courts  of  the  state  could  the 
authority  of  the  ordinance  or  the  acts  of  the 
legislature  to  give  it  effect  be  questioned,  and  that 
no  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  was  to  be  allowed.  All  state  officers  were 
to  be  required  to  take  an  oath  prescribed  by  the 
legislature,  to  "obey,  execute,  and  enforce"  the 
ordinance  and  the  acts  of  the  legislature  made  in 
pursuance  thereof,  and  no  juror  was  to  be  im- 


Nullification  Adopted  215 

paneled  in  any  state  court,  in  any  case  in  which 
the  ordinance  or  acts  of  the  legislature  were 
questioned,  unless  he  should  take  such  an  oath. 
It  announced  for  the  people  of  South  Carolina  that 
they  would  not  submit  to  the  use  of  force  by  the 
federal  government  to  reduce  the  state  to  obedi 
ence;  that  they  would  consider  the  passage  by 
Congress  of  any  act  authorizing  the  employment 
of  a  military  or  naval  force  against  the  state  or 
her  citizens— 

or  any  other  act  on  the  part  of  the  federal  government 
to  coerce  the  state,  shut  up  her  ports,  destroy  or  harrass 
her  commerce,  or  to  enforce  the  acts  hereby  declared  to  be 
null  and  void,  otherwise  than  through  the  civil  tribunals 
of  the  country,  as  inconsistent  with  the  longer  continuance 
of  South  Carolina  in  the  Union;  and  that  the  people  of 
this  state  will  henceforth  hold  themselves  absolved  from 
all  further  obligation  to  maintain  or  preserve  their  politi 
cal  connexion  with  the  people  of  other  states,  and  will 
forthwith  proceed  to  organize  a  separate  government,  and 
do  all  other  acts  and  things  which  sovereign  and  inde 
pendent  states  may  of  right  do. 

An  address  to  the  people  of  South  Carolina, 
written  by  Robert  J.  Turnbull,  was  intended  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Union  men.  It  first  stated  that 
nullification  was  a  natural,  sovereign,  reserved 
right,  and  then  attempted  to  answer  the  various 


2i6    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

objections  raised  against  nullification;  it  pro 
fessed  a  belief  that  nullification  would  preserve 
and  not  destroy  the  Union,  but  admitted  that 
Congress  or  the  central  government  could  give 
the  controversy  what  issue  it  pleased.  So  much 
was  simply  a  restatement  of  a  position  often  pre 
sented.  The  real  point  was  reached  when  the  ad 
dress  announced  that  if  appeals  to  reason  proved 
unavailing  to  induce  any  of  the  people  of  the 
state — the  Union  men — to  support  the  action  of 
the  convention,  obedience  would  be  commanded; 
it  asserted  that  there  was  not  and  never  had  been 
any  direct  or  immediate  allegiance  between  the 
citizens  of  South  Carolina  and  the  federal  govern 
ment;  that  the  relation  between  them  was  through 
the  state  and  that  the  commands  of  the  state  were 
obligatory  on  her  citizens. 

An  address  to  the  people  of  the  other  states, 
named  individually,  prepared  by  George  McDuffie. 
set  forth  the  State  Rights  conception  of  the  com 
pact  entered  into  between  the  sovereign  states. 
It  described  the  oppressiveness  of  the  tariff  and 
added  that  the  people  of  South  Carolina  would 
not  count  the  costs  in  vindicating  their  rights. 
They  were  willing  to  give  much  to  preserve  the 
Union,  and,  with  a  distinct  declaration  that  it  was 


Nullification  Adopted  217 

a  concession,  they  would  consent  to  the  same 
rate  of  duty  on  protected  as  on  unprotected 
articles,  provided  that  no  more  revenue  were 
raised  than  was  necessary  to  meet  the  demands  of 
the  government  for  constitutional  purposes,  and 
that  a  duty,  substantially  uniform,  were  imposed 
on  all  foreign  imports.  The  address  then  gave 
warning  to  the  general  government  that  if  South 
Carolina  were  driven  out  of  the  Union,  all  the 
other  planting  states  and  some  of  the  western  states 
would  follow,  for  they  would  not  continue  to  pay 
to  the  North,  for  the  privilege  of  being  united 
with  the  North,  a  tribute  of  50  per  cent  on  their 
consumption,  when  they  could  receive  all  their 
supplies  duty-free  through  the  ports  of  South 
Carolina.  The  address  closed  by  disclaiming  the 
slightest  apprehension  that  the  general  govern 
ment  would  attempt  the  use  of  force,  but  an 
nounced  that,  if  it  did,  South  Carolina  would  be 
"the  cemetery  of  freemen  rather  than  the  habi 
tation  of  slaves." 

The  proceedings  of  the  convention  were  con 
ducted  with  great  solemnity,  and  there  seemed 
to  be  very  little  excitement  among  the  members 
of  either  party.  The  Union  delegates  silently 
voted  against  the  report,  ordinance,  and  addresses ; 


218    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

the  State  Rights  delegates  adopted  these  measures 
unhesitatingly,  confident  that  they  were  doing 
the  bidding  of  the  people  expressed  by  their 
election.  The  convention  was  composed  gener 
ally  of  men  who  had  advanced  to  middle  life 
or  beyond  it.  There  were  but  few  young  men, 
probably  not  one  under  twenty-five,  and  very 
few  under  thirty;  there  were  several  who  had 
served  in  the  Revolutionary  War.  The  wealth 
of  the  state  was  well  represented.  Of  talent,  no 
one  would  deny  that  the  convention  could  boast 
of  a  large  share,  for  the  papers  adopted  by  the 
convention  were  pronounced,  even  by  men  of 
the  opposition,  as  among  the  most  able  they  had 
ever  read.1 

The  state  legislature  convened  immediately 
after  the  convention  adjourned,  and  proceeded  to 
pass  the  acts  necessary  to  carry  the  ordinance  of 
nullification  into  effect.  The  governor's  message 
had  in  it  several  features  which  called  forth  bitter 
resentment  from  the  Union  men.  It  was  pro 
nounced  by  them  such  a  document  as  would 
harmonize  with  the  acknowledged  attributes  of 
an  "Eastern  Despot,  haughtily  addressing  his 
slaves,"  for  it  bore  no  feature  which  would  entitle 

1  Messenger,  December  5,  1832. 


Nullification  Adopted  219 

it  to  the  honor  of  being  called  "an  exposition  of 
the  affairs  of  a  free  people. "  The  governor 
recommended  that  the  legislature  raise  an  army 
of  12,000  men,  to  be  called  the  "State  Guard." 
This  the  Union  men  said  would  be  a  standing 
army,  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  people— 
the  first  step  toward  the  establishment  of  a  mili 
tary  despotism.  The  governor  would  go  even 
farther  than  the  proscription  of  Union  men  from 
office  by  the  "test  oath,"  for  he  recommended  a 
"bill  of  pains  and  penalties"  to  be  enforced  upon 
those  who  should  disobey  the  ordinance,  and  an 
"act  of  treason"  to  apply  to  those  who  should 
raise  their  hands  in  defense  of  the  Union.1 

The  legislature  passed  an  act  ostensibly  to 
afford  a  complete  and  peaceable  protection 
against  the  tariff.  The  first  and  second  clauses 
authorized  any  importer,  consignee,  or  owner  of 
goods  to  recover  possession  of  his  goods  forth 
with  from  a  collector  by  an  act  of  replevin,  or  by 
any  other  process  authorized  by  law  in  cases  of 
illegal  seizure  or  detention  of  personal  property. 
If  the  person  who  claimed  the  goods  chose  to  pro 
ceed  by  replevin,  he  might  make  affidavit  of  the 

1  Mercury,  December  i,  1832;  Gazette,  November  30;  Moun 
taineer,  December  8. 


22O    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

seizure  or  detention  by  the  collector  or  his  agent; 
a  writ  of  replevin  would  be  given  to  the  sheriff, 
who  would  take  possession  of  the  goods  and 
immediately  deliver  them  over  to  the  claimant 
upon  his  giving  bond,  to  the  value  of  the  goods, 
that  he  would  prosecute  his  suit  and  abide  its 
decision.  This  bond  the  sheriff  was  to  retain. 
The  merchant,  having  received  the  goods,  might 
dispose  of  them  at  pleasure;  his  declaration  was 
to  be  filed;  the  case  would  come  into  court; 
the  jury  must  be  sworn  to  enforce  the  ordinance 
of  nullification,  and,  of  course,  must  decide  that, 
the  tariff  being  a  nullity,  the  collector  had  no 
claim  whatever  to  the  goods;  the  bond  given  to 
the  sheriff  would  be  canceled  and  there  the  matter 
would  end. 

The  third  clause  provided  against  the  retention 
of  goods  by  the  collector  or  other  federal  agent 
in  disobedience  to  the  mandate  of  the  court.  In 
such  case  the  sheriff  was  to  make  affidavit  of  the 
detention  and  take  out  a  writ  of  wither nam, 
under  which  he  must  seize  the  private  property  of 
the  collector,  to  double  the  value  of  the  goods 
detained,  and  retain  it  at  the  expense  of  the 
collector  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  importer  until 
the  goods  were  surrendered.  The  fourth  clause 


Nullification  Adopted  221 

empowered  the  sheriff  to  resist  any  attempt  to 
recapture  the  goods  after  he  had  delivered  them 
to  the  merchant.  The  fifth  authorized  any  per 
son  who  should  pay  any  duties  to  recover  the 
amount  with  interest  from  the  collector  by  an 
action  of  assumpsit.  This  action  would  take  the 
usual  course  of  an  action  on  account  or  note  of 
hand,  and  the  merchant,  after  having  received 
his  goods  and  sold  them,  if  he  chose  this 
remedy,  would  be  sure  of  receiving  the  amount 
of  duties  and  interest  on  them  within  a  year 
at  the  most.  If  the  sheriff  should  not  be  able 
to  get  the  money,  the  collector  himself  might 
be  seized. 

The  sixth  clause  entitled  any  person  arrested 
or  imprisoned  by  process  of  the  federal  court  to 
immediate  release  by  writ  of  habeas  corpus  on 
application  to  any  judge  of  the  state.  It  also 
entitled  any  such  person  to  an  action  against  the 
federal  officer  for  unlawful  arrest  or  imprisonment. 
The  seventh  clause  provided  that  no  title  should 
be  good  if  given  by  any  federal  officer  for  property 
sold  for  duties.  The  eighth  endeavored  to  pre 
vent  appeal  to  a  federal  court  by  providing  a 
fine  and  imprisonment  for  any  official  who  should 
furnish  any  record  which  related  in  any  manner  to 


222     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

the  ordinance  and  acts  of  nullification.  The 
ninth  subjected  the  collector  and  all  his  assistants 
or  employees,  aiders,  or  abettors,  to  fines  and 
imprisonment  for  any  disobedience  to  the  process 
of  replevin,  or  for  any  other  attempt  to  resist  or 
defeat  this  law;  it  also  subjected  them  to  indict 
ment  for  any  assault  or  offense  involved  in  their 
misdemeanor.  The  tenth  provided  still  heavier 
fines  and  imprisonment  for  all  persons  in  any  way 
concerned  in  recapturing  or  attempting  to  recap 
ture  goods  which  the  sheriff  had  delivered  to  the 
merchant  or  owner.  The  eleventh  declared  that 
no  public  jail  in  the  state  should  be  used  for  the 
imprisonment  of  any  person  for  nonpayment  of 
duties,  and  the  twelfth  that  no  house  or  building 
in  the  state  should  be  so  used.  To  make  sure 
that  the  federal  violators  of  the  law  would  be 
punished  at  the  first  court  of  sessions  after  the  com 
mission  of  their  crime,  the  thirteenth  clause  pro 
vided  that  no  indictment  under  this  act  should 
be  traversed.  The  fourteenth  directed  that 
the  fines  were  to  go  to  the  public  treasury  of 
the  state.  The  fifteenth  provided  that  the 
ordinance  and  the  act  might  be  given  in  evi 
dence  without  being  specially  pleaded.  The  six 
teenth  and  last  announced  that  the  act  should 


Nullification  Adopted  223 

take   effect   on   the   first   day  of  the  following 
February.1 

The  State  Rights  men  professed  to  believe 
that  the  whole  project  would  work  smoothly.  A 
few  consolidations ts,  they  held,  who  said  that 
they  would  pay  the  duties,  might  do  so  for  a  short 
time,  but  they  could  not  meet  competition  long 
and  would  soon  give  in.  No  federal  officer  would 
dare  to  attempt  to  put  himself  in  opposition  to 
the  South  Carolina  laws.  The  remedy  would  be 
applied  peaceably  through  state  courts,  and 
since  the  people  of  South  Carolina  would  commit 
no  act  of  violence  themselves,  Jackson  would  be 
unable  to  find  a  pretext  for  commencing  a  conflict. 
He  might  "make  faces  and  shake  his  fist  and  snap 
his  fingers"  at  them  as  much  as  he  pleased;  they 
would  "walk  into  the  courthouse  and  leave  him 
bullying  on  the  green. "  They  had  told  him  that 
if  he  attempted  force  by  blockading  their  harbors 
or  otherwise  cutting  off  their  trade,  they  would 
secede;  and  if  he  resolved  to  fight  them  upon  the 
right  of  secession,  he  would  find  more  states  oppos 
ing  him  than  he  expected  to  meet.2 

1  Mercury,  January  i,  1833.    22d  Congress,  2<i  session,  House 
Document  No.  45,  pp.  70-74. 

2  Mercury,  January  i,  1833. 


224    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

But  the  legislature  also  made  provision  for  the 
possibility  that  everything  might  not  proceed  as 
planned  with  its  "peaceable"  remedy.  It  passed 
an  act  authorizing  the  governor  to  accept  an  un 
limited  number  of  volunteer  companies,  to  be 
ready  to  march  at  a  moment's  notice,  "to  suppress 
insurrection  and  repel  invasion  and  support  the 
civil  authorities/7  which  the  Union  men  inter 
preted  to  mean  to  put  down  the  Union  party, 
trample  on  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people, 
and  resist  the  United  States  government  in  the 
execution  of  its  laws.1  A  fund  of  $200,000  was 
appropriated  to  the  contingent  fund,  always  at  the 
disposal  of  the  governor,  and  $200,000  more  for 
the  purchase  of  arms. 

During  the  preliminary  discussions  on  nulli 
fication  various  and  conflicting  reports  had  come 
from  other  states  as  to  their  opinions  of  the 
doctrine.  After  South  Carolina  had  taken  the 
step,  however,  there  was  apparently  no  doubt  that 
the  action  met  but  little  favor,  even  in  the  other 
southern  states.2  The  South  Carolinians  who 

1  Mountaineer,  December  29,  1832. 

2  Poinsett  Papers:    Drayton  to  Poinsett,  December  31,   1832. 
Patriot,  March  3,  1832;  Mountaineer,  October  20,  November  24,  De 
cember,  15;  Messenger,  December  12;  Niles'  Register,  September  i, 
15,  December  i. 


Nullification  Adopted  225 

had  looked  to  Virginia  for  support  in  their  move 
ment  had  long  before  this  found  themselves  dis 
appointed.  The  men  of  the  western  part  of  Vir 
ginia  had  early  shown  that  they  had  no  sympathy 
with  the  Nullifiers.  In  the  lower  Piedmont  and 
Tidewater  counties  there  was  much  sympathy 
with  the  South  Carolina  protest  against  the  tariff, 
and  even  some  sympathy  with  the  nullification 
doctrine,  but  a  majority  even  here  agreed  with 
Thomas  Ritchie  and  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  that 
nullification  was  unlike  the  Virginia  doctrines  of 
1798  and  without  sanction  or  precedent,  even 
though  they  disagreed  with  Ritchie  on  political 
questions  related  to  the  presidency.  They  be 
lieved  in  the  compact  theory  of  the  formation  of 
the  central  government  and  affirmed  a  belief  in  the 
right  of  secession;  hence  they  disagreed  with  the 
President's  proclamation  on  these  points.  Some 
expressed  to  the  President  an  appreciation  of  the 
cause  for  which  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  and  John  C. 
Calhoun  were  working,  but  gave  definite  assurances 
that  though  the  former  was  considered  a  "noble 
fellow,"  he  must  "throw  overboard  Mr.  Jonas  Cal 
houn"  before  aid  could  be  expected  from  Virginia.1 

1  Jackson  Papers:   John  Randolph  to  Jackson,  March  i,  18,  28, 
1832. 


226    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Though  Virginia  had  but  a  few  Nullifiers,  it 
was  said  that  she  would  not  "send  a  man  or 
musket  to  put  down  South  Carolina/'  and  that 
a  resort  to  "violent  remedies"  by  the  general 
government  might  cause  her  to  support  South 
Carolina.1 

The  majority  of  the  Virginia  statesmen,  how 
ever,  seem  to  have  become  too  much  interested 
in  the  presidential  campaign  and  the  distribu 
tion  of  official  plums  to  share  more  than  a  modi 
cum  of  South  Carolina's  agitation.  Moreover, 
some  believed  honestly  that  the  menace  of  the 
tariff  would  soon  disappear  when  the  sale  of  the 
public  lands  extinguished  the  national  debt  and 
rendered  the  tariff  unnecessary  and  even  impos 
sible.2 

From  Alabama  came  assurances  to  Washington 
that  the  state  was  sound  on  the  nullification  doc 
trine,  in  spite  of  superficial  appearances  to  the 
contrary  in  a  recent  election  of  a  United  States 
senator.3  From  his  own  observations  Jackson 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:   Thomas  Ritchie  to  Van  Buren,  June  25, 
1832;  Richard  E.  Parker  to  Van  Buren,  September  5. 

2  Charles  H.  Ambler,  Thomas  Ritchie,  chaps,  iv  and  v;  Sectional 
ism  in  Virginia  from  1776  to  1861,  chap.  vi. 

3  Jackson  Papers:  John  Coffee  to  Jackson,  February  24,  1832. 


Nullification  Adopted  227 

concluded  that  the  few  Nullifiers  who  were  in 
Tennessee  would  not  dare  to  " hoist  their  colors.7'1 
New  York  was  said  to  be  ready  to  adopt  strong 
resolutions  against  nullification.2  Even  Georgia, 
it  seemed,  would  disappoint  South  Carolina  in 
the  position  she  was  about  to  assume.3 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:  Jackson  to  Van  Buren,  September  16,  1832. 

2  Jackson  Papers:    James  A.  Hamilton  to  Jackson,  New  York, 
December  13,  1832. 

a  Van  Buren  Papers:  John  Forsyth  to  Van  Buren,  November  23, 
1832. 


CHAPTER  VII 
JACKSON  AND  NULLIFICATION  (1832-33) 

The  State  Rights  men  had  known  for  a  year 
or  more  that  the  Union  men  were  counting  much 
on  the  sympathy  of  the  President  for  their  views. 
Yet  there  was  uncertainty  as  to  just  what  he 
would  do  when  the  real  test  should  come.  The 
relations  of  the  two  parties  to  the  President  had 
been  made  entirely  clear  in  the  presidential  cam 
paign.  The  State  Rights  men  were  so  inimical 
to  Jackson  that  they  were  accused  even  of  being 
willing  to  support  Adams  in  opposition  to  him.1 
Jackson's  popularity,  however,  was  so  great  that 
for  some  time  they  had  to  conceal  much  of  their 
hostility  to  him.2  The  Union  men  alone  took 
part  in  the  Baltimore  nominating  convention,  but 
their  opponents,  when  the  time  came  to  cast  the 
vote  of  the  state,  felt  not  at  all  bound  by  the 
work  of  the  national  convention,  and  cast  the  vote 

1  Mountaineer,  January  28,  1832.     The  accusation  was  based  on 
a  suggestion  made  by  the  Post. 

2  Journal,  January  28,  1833.     Calhoun  Correspondence:  Calhouri 
to  S.  L.  Gouverneur,  February  13. 

228 


Jackson  and  Nullification  229 

of  the  state  for  Floyd,  governor  of  Virginia,  and 
Lee,  a  Massachusetts  free-trade  advocate.1 

During  September  and  October  Jackson  was 
kept  informed  of  affairs  in  the  state  by  letters 
from  Joel  R.  Poinsett.  This  Union  leader  told 
the  President  that  the  Union  men  would  firmly 
oppose  nullification  and  adhere  to  their  allegiance 
to  the  United  States.  He  reminded  Jackson, 
however,  that  allegiance  implied  protection,  and 
that  the  Unionists  relied  upon  the  government  to 
act  with  vigor  in  their  behalf.  The  Nullifiers, 
he  said,  seemed  to  believe  that  no  measures  would 
be  taken  against  them;  he  assumed  otherwise, 
however,  and  recommended  that  the  forts  be 
supplied  with  muskets,  hand  grenades,  and 
ammunition  enough  to  enforce  the  customs  laws 
if  necessary.2 

Jackson  soon  recognized  that  a  crisis  was 
fast  approaching  in  South  Carolina.  As  early  as 
September  n  he  had  sent  word  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  that  a  confidential  friend  had  "more 
than  intimated  "  that  efforts  had  been  made  by  the 
Nullifiers,  "and  perhaps  not  without  success,"  to 

1  Presidential  electors  were  chosen  by  the  legislature  in  South 
Carolina.     See  Messenger,  December  12, 1832;  Journal,  December  15. 

2  Jackson  Papers:   Poinsett  to  Jackson,  October  16,  1832. 


230    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

disaffect  some  of  the  navy  and  army  officers  in 
command  at  Charleston,  in  order  to  get  possession 
of  the  forts  and  thereby  prevent  a  blockade.  The 
Secretary  of  War  was  also  warned  to  be  sure  that 
he  had  officers  in  Charleston  who  could  not  be 
corrupted  by  the  Nullifiers,  and  on  October  29  he 
was  instructed  to  send  secret  orders  to  the  officers 
commanding  the  forts  in  Charleston  harbor  to  be 
prepared  against  a  surprise  attack  "by  any  set 
of  people."1 

A  few  days  later  Jackson  sent  George  Breathitt, 
brother  of  the  governor  of  Kentucky,  to  Charles 
ton  in  the  guise  of  an  agent  for  the  Post-Office 
Department,  but  in  reality  as  a  military  spy,  to 
report  on  the  ships  in  the  harbor  and  the  means 
of  defense  around  Sullivan's  Island  and  other 
strategic  points.  He  was  to  endeavor  to  dis 
cover  the  intentions  of  the  Nullifiers  as  to  the  col 
lection  of  the  duties,  and  to  investigate  reports 
Jackson  had  received  from  Union  men  in  Charles 
ton  that  there  were  several  revenue  officers  who 
were  expressing  sympathy  with  the  Nullifiers,  and 
that  the  postmaster  of  Charleston,  his  deputy, 
and  clerks  were  spies  for  the  Nullifiers,  opening 

rjdfckson  Papers:  Jackson  to  Levi  Woodbury,  September  n, 
1832;  Jackson  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  October  29. 


Jackson  and  Nullification  231 

communications  passing  between  the  administra 
tion  and  the  Unionists.  He  was  also,  "by  consul 
tation  with  Colonel  Dray  ton  and  Mr.  Poinsett 
and  other  discreet  friends  of  the  Union/ '  to 
obtain  all  such  information  as  might  aid  the 
government  in  taking  "timely  steps  towards  the 
counteraction  of  the  effort  of  the  Nullifiers  to 
render  inoperative  the  laws  of  the  Union."1 

Instructions  were  sent  on  November  6  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  the  three  collectors 
of  the  customs  at  Charleston,  Georgetown,  and 
Beaufort  to  be  ready  for  any  emergency.  The 
various  clauses  of  "an  act  to  regulate  the  collection 
of  duties  on  imports  and  tonnage,"  passed  March 
2,  1799,  were  quoted  to  remind  them  of  their 
powers  and  duties.  Revenue  cutters  were  placed 
at  their  disposal,  and  they  were  empowered  to 
provide  as  many  boats  and  to  employ  as  many 
inspectors  as  might  be  necessary  for  the  execution 
of  the  law.  In  view  of  the  likelihood  of  an  attempt 
to  take  goods  from  the  custody  of  the  officers  of  the 
customs  under  process  issuing  from  the  state 
courts,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  also  wrote 
on  November  19  to  remind  the  United  States 

1  Poinsett  Papers:  Jackson  to  Poinsett,  November  7,  1832;  Jack 
son  Papers:  Instructions  to  Breathitt,  November  7. 


232     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

district  attorney  at  Charleston  that  in  the  case  of 
Slocum  v.  Mayberry  the  Supreme  Court  had 
decided  that  the  courts  of  the  United  States 
had  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  all  seizures  made 
on  land  or  water  for  a  breach  of  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  any  intervention  of  a 
state  authority,  which,  by  taking  the  thing  seized 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  United  States  officer,  might 
obstruct  the  exercise  of  this  jurisdiction,  was 
unlawful.1 

When  the  President  sent  his  military  spy  to 
Charleston  he  privately  expressed  great  astonish 
ment  that  the  people  of  South  Carolina  "should 
be  so  far  deluded  by  the  wild  theory  and  sophistry 
of  a  few*  ambitious  demagogues  as  to  place  them 
selves  in  the  attitude  of  rebellion  against  their 
government,  and  become  the  destroyers  of  their 
own  prosperity  and  liberty."  There  appeared 
to  him  in  all  their  proceedings  nothing  but  madness 
and  folly.  "The  duty  of  the  Executive,"  he  said, 
"is  a  plain  one;  the  laws  will  be  executed  and 
the  Union  preserved  by  all  the  constitutional 
and  legal  means  he  is  invested  with,  and  I  rely 
with  great  confidence  on  the  support  of  every 

1  220!  Congress,  2d  session,  House  Document  No.  45,  pp.  92-99; 
2d  Wheaton,  p.  i. 


Jackson  and  Nullification  233 

honest  patriot  in  South  Carolina  who  really 
loves  his  country  and  the  prosperity  and  happiness 
we  enjoy  under  our  happy  and  peaceful  republican 
government/'1 

The  President  thereafter  kept  in  close  touch 
with  the  leader  of  the  Union  party,  Joel  R. 
Poinsett,  who,  in  the  middle  of  November,  wrote 
of  his  belief  that  a  majority  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Nullifiers'  "political  club"  would  favor  secession 
in  case  of  an  attempt  by  the  government  to  coerce 
the  state,  and  that  even  though  many  of  the 
party  would  be  opposed  to  such  a  course,  the 
leaders  could  secure  its  adoption .  "  It  is  believed/ ' 
he  said,  "that  Mr.  Calh'oun  is  against  this  measure 
and  insists  that  the  state  may  be  in  and  out  of 
the  Union  at  the  same  time  and  that  the  govern 
ment  has  no  right  to  cause  the  laws  to  be  executed 
in  South  Carolina.'  Both  parties  are  anxious  and 
indulge  the  hope  that  the  government  will  com 
mit  some  act  of  violence  which  ^will  enlist  the 
sympathies  of  the  bordering  states."  Poinsett 
recommended  caution,  and  urged  especially  that 
the  Nullifiers  be  allowed  to  commit  the  first  act 
of  violence.2 

1  Poinsett  Papers:  Jackson  to  Poinsett,  November  7,  1832. 

2  Jackson  Papers:   Poinsett  to  Jackson,  November  16,  29,  1832. 


234    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

As  a  precautionary  measure  the  President  early 
sent  five  thousand  stand  of  muskets  to  Castle 
Pinckney  with  the  promise  that  a  sloop  of  war  and 
a  smaller  armed  vessel  should  reach  Charleston 
harbor  in  due  time.  The  commanding  officer 
of  Castle  Pinckney  was  to  be  instructed  to  deliver 
the  arms,  ordnance,  and  other  equipment  to  the 
order  of  Poinsett  as  the  occasion  should  demand 
and  as  they  could  be  spared  from  the  arsenal. 
The  President  interpreted  nullification  to  mean 
insurrection  and  war;  he  felt  that  the  other  states 
had  a  right  to  put  it  down  and  that  all  the  "peace 
able  citizens  "  of  South  Carolina  had  a  right  to  aid 
in  the  same  patriotic  effort  when  summoned  in 
support  of  the  violated  laws  of  the  land.  He 
placed  much  confidence  in  the  Union  party  of 
South  Carolina,  acting  with  Poinsett,  and  was 
anxious  to  furnish  all  means  in  his  power  to  these 
patriots  to  save  the  state.1 

1  Poinsett  Papers:  Jackson  to  Poinsett,  December  2,  9,  1832; 
Department  of  War  to  Poinsett,  December  7;  Van  Buren  Papers: 
Jackson  to  Van  Buren,  October  23. 

One  Union  man  in  Calhoun's  own  section  assured  Jackson  that 
he  intended  to  start  a  movement  in  the  Union  party  to  secure  the 
impeachment  of  Calhoun,  and  asked  that  all  his  former  letters  to  the 
President  be  preserved  for  evidence  of  the  impression  produced  in 
his  district  by  the  attempts  of  Calhoun  to  excite  the  people  to  resist 
the  operation  of  the  laws  (Jackson  Papers:  Dr.  E.  S.  Davis  to 


Jackson  and  Nullification  235 

On  December  9  Jackson  issued  his  famous 
proclamation  in  answer  to  the  stand  taken  by 
South  Carolina.  It  gave  clearly  his  "  views  of 
the  treasonable  conduct  of  the  convention  and 
the  governor's  recommendation  to  the  assembly. " 
The  whole  situation,  and  particularly  "the  act 
of  raising  troops,"  was  regarded  as  "not  merely 
rebellion,  but  ....  positive  treason."  The 
absurdity  of  the  situation  he  believed  was  too 
glaring  to  admit  of  argument,  and  he  hoped  that 
his  proclamation,  which  he  addressed  to  the  good 
people  of  South  Carolina  "with  the  feeling  of  a 
father,"  would  "take  the  scales  of  delusion  from 
their  eyes  before  ....  too  late."1  All  the  mem 
bers  of  Congress  with  whom  he  conversed  assured 

Jackson,  November  22,  1832).  Still  another  Unionist  wrote  from 
Columbia  that  he  was  "almost  sick"  of  his  native  state,  "or  rather 

those  who  rule  it Everything  has  become  rotten.     Even  those 

who  call  themselves  Union  men  have  acted  foolish,  ay — like  babies. 
I  have  almost  determined  to  wash  my  hands  of  the  whole  of  them  and 
look  for  another  home.  I  would  freely  die  to  redeem  the  state  from 
the  blind  infatuation  under  which  she  labors,  but  a  thousand  lives 
would  not  do  it,  unless  Calhoun  &  Co.  were  included  in  the  number. 
Never  did  a  sick  patient  want  bleeding  worse  than  some  of  our 
Nullies  do."  He  then  told  of  the  military  preparations  of  the 
Nullifiers  to  effect  their  "peaceful  remedy"  (Jackson  Papers:  James 
O.  Hanlon  to  Jackson,  November  30,  1832). 

1  Poinsett   Papers:    Jackson   to   Poinsett,   December   9,    1832; 
Jackson  Papers:  Jackson  to  Poinsett,  December  9. 


236    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

him  that  Congress  would  sustain  him;  he  deter 
mined,  therefore,  to  meet  the  menace  at  the 
threshold  and  to  have  the  leaders  arrested  and 
arraigned  for  treason.  He  tried  to  encourage 
the  Union  leaders  by  assuring  them  that  in  forty 
days  he  could  have  fifty  thousand  men  within 
the  limits  of  South  Carolina,  and  in  forty  days 
more  another  fifty  thousand.  "How  impotent/' 
he  wrote,  is  "the  threat  of  resistance  with  only  a 
population  of  250,000  whites  and  nearly  double 
that  in  blacks,  with  our  ships  in  the  port  to  aid 
in  the  execution  of  our  laws.  The  wickedness, 
madness,  and  folly  of  the  leaders  and  the  delu 
sion  of  their  followers,  in  the  attempt  to  destroy 
themselves  and  our  Union,  has  not  its  parallel  in 
the  history  of  the  world.  The  Union  will  be 
preserved."1 

The  President's  proclamation  was  printed  by 
the  Union  leaders  in  large  editions  to  circulate 
throughout  the  districts.  It  would  serve  to  give 
courage  to  the  Union  men  and  might  convince 
others  of  the  error  of  their  ways.3  In  no  uncertain 
terms  the  President  declared  that  he  considered 

1  Poinsett  Papers:  Jackson  to  Poinsett,  December  9,  1832. 

2  Poinsett  Papers:    Chapman  Levy  to  Poinsett,  December  22, 
1832. 


Jackson  and  Nullification  237 

"the  power  to  annul  a  law  of  the  United  States, 
assumed  by  one  state,  incompatible  with  the 
existence  of  the  Union,  contradicted  expressly 
by  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  unauthorised 
by  its  spirit,  inconsistent  with  every  principle  on 
which  it  was  founded,  and  destructive  of  the  great 
object  for  which  it  was  formed."1  The  object 
of  the  Nullifiers,  he  set  forth,  was  disunion; 
"but,"  he  added,  "be  not  deceived  by  names; 

disunion,  by  armed  force,  is  treason The 

laws  of  the  United  States  must  be  executed." 

The  President's  message,  which  had  appeared 
in  print  a  few  days  before  the  proclamation, 
received  no  little  praise  from  the  pens  of  the 
State  Rights  editors  because  of  its  sound  doctrines 
on  the  tariff.2  At  that  time  the  intentions  of 
those  in  power  were  not  fully  known;  but  the 
proclamation  left  no  doubt.  It  was  hailed  as  a 
declaration  of  war  by  the  President  against  South 
Carolina.3  When  contrasted  with  the  message  of  a 
few  days  before,  it  seemed  to  show  that  "this  un 
happy  old  man"  had  been  induced  by  his  advisers 
to  arrogate  the  power  to  coerce  a  state  of  the 

1  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  II,  643. 

2  Mercury,  December  10,  1832;   Messenger,  December  19. 

3  Mercury,  December  17,  1831;  Messenger,  December  26. 


238    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

confederacy;  to  issue  the  decree  of  a  dictator,  which 
time  would  prove  whether  he  dared  or  could  en 
force;  to  attempt  to  intimidate  the  Whigs1  of  South 
Carolina  by  threats;  and  to  encourage  and  foment 
insurrection  and  violence  on  the  part  of  the  inter 
nal  enemies  of  the  state.  The  State  Rights  men 
believed  that  the  proclamation  went  the  whole 
length  of  the  doctrine  of  consolidation,  not  only 
assuming  for  the  federal  government  the  right  to 
judge  of  its  own  powers,  but  arrogating  this  right 
to  its  full  extent  on  behalf  of  the  executive  depart 
ment.  Accordingly,  they  greeted  the  document 
with  indignation  and  defiance. 

The  Union  men  believed  that  their  opponents 
were  pouring  their  bitterness  upon  the  chief 
magistrate  because  the  proclamation  had  come 
like  a  thunderbolt  to  the  leaders  of  their  party. 
They  had  had  no  expectation  that  their  manifesto 

1  The  Nullifiers  seem  to  have  assumed  the  name  of  Whigs  and 
applied  that  of  Tories  to  the  Union  men.  Duff  Green,  the  editor  of 
the  Washington  Telegraph,  referred  to  James  Blair,  congressman  from 
South  Carolina,  and  his  party  as  Tories,  whereupon  Blair  made  an 
assault  upon  Green  and  quite  seriously  disabled  him  (Niles* 
Register,  December  29, 1832).  The  editor  of  the  Mercury  denounced 
Blair  for  his  attack  and  tried  to  show  that  the  use  of  the  term  "Tory" 
was  justifiable,  not  merely  in  its  qualified  English  sense,  but  in  its 
worst  American  sense,  when  applied  to  any  who  would  side  with  the 
general  government  against  South  Carolina  (Mercury,  January  i, 
1833). 


Jackson  and  Nullification  239 

of  war  against  the  general  government  would  be 
met  by  such  a  counter-manifesto.  It  put  to 
flight  all  their  solemn  asseverations  of  the  peace- 
ableness  of  their  remedy,  for  it  told  them  that 
resistance  to  the  laws  would  be  put  down  by  the 
power  with  which  Congress  had  armed  the  fed 
eral  executive  to  punish  treason.1  The  Nullifiers 
were  not  at  a  loss  for  a  reply,  such  as  it  was,  to 
the  taunt  of  the  failure  of  their  remedy  as  a 
peaceable  one.  They  felt  satisfied  to  say  that 
the  blame  for  such  failure  lay  entirely  with  the 
President  and  the  Union  party,  because  they  would 
not  permit  the  Nullifiers  to  carry  out  all  their 
plans  as  had  been  intended.2 

In  Virginia  the  proclamation  had  a  marked 
effect.  When  the  assembly  met,  shortly  before 
the  proclamation  was  issued,  the  factions  within 
the  Democratic  party  seemed  to  have  united 
permanently,  for  W.  C.  Rives,  an  ardent  adminis 
tration  man,  was  elected  almost  unanimously  to 
the  United  States  Senate  to  succeed  John  Tyler. 
After  the  proclamation,  however,  there  appeared 
a  Union  party  and  a  State  Rights  party,  com 
posed  chiefly  of  representatives  of  the  western 

1  Patriot,  December  18,  1832. 
3  Mercury,  December  7,  29,  1832. 


240    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

and  eastern  sections,  respectively.  The  latter 
had  control  of  the  assembly  by  about  ten  votes. 
They  passed  resolutions  praising  South  Carolina's 
resistance  but  deploring  her  methods,  denouncing 
the  proclamation,  and  recommending  a  general 
convention  in  case  Congress  should  not  reduce  the 
tariff;  they  sent  a  commissioner  to  South  Caro 
lina  recommending  less  speedy  action,  and  finished 
their  work  by  returning  John  Tyler  to  the  United 
States  Senate  when  L.  W.  Tazewell  resigned; 
Tyler  sympathized  with  nullification  and  cast 
the  only  vote  in  the  Senate  against  the  force  bill. 
But  even  this  was  far  short  of  what  the  South 
Carolina  Nullifiers  had  wanted.1 

The  sudden  resignation  of  Tazewell,  "con 
nected  with  other  signs  of  the  times,"  caused 
Jackson  to  fear  that  some  secret  plan  was  being 
hatched  in  Virginia.  Just  before  the  issue  of 
his  proclamation  he  had  received  from  Virginia 
an  expression  of  hope  that  he  would  not  be  too 
severe  with  South  Carolina.  After  the  Virginia 
action  following  the  proclamation,  Jackson  as 
serted  that  he  had  been  "  aware  of  the  combina 
tion  between  them  and  Calhoun  &  Co./7  and  that 

1  Charles  H.  Ambler,  Thomas  Ritchie,  chap,  v;  also  his  Section 
alism  in  Virginia  from  1776  to  1861,  chap,  vi;  Jackson  Papers: 
Poinsett  to  Jackson,  January  7,  1833. 


Jackson  and  Nullification  241 

the  South  Carolina  leaders  had  been  in  great  haste 
in  order  to  get  their  "  rebellious  ordinance,  .... 
nullifying  doctrine,  and  rights  of  secession"  sus 
tained  by  the  Virginia  legislature.  By  the  middle 
of  January,  however,  the  President  was  confident 
that  Virginia,  excepting  a  few  Nullifiers  and  poli 
ticians,  was  true  to  the  core,  and  that  he  could 
march  forty  thousand  men  from  that  state  in 
forty  days.  He  was  then,  indeed,  without  doubt 
that  he  could  get  many  times  the  troops  needed, 
not  simply  from  "good  old  Democratic  Pennsyl 
vania/'  but  from  Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  and 
all  the  western  states.  Although  the  New  York 
legislature,  because  of  political  fears,  disappointed 
him  by  its  silence,  he  was  assured  that  the  people 
and  the  press  were  with  him.1 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:  Jackson  to  Van  Buren,  November  18, 
December  23,  1832;  January  13,  25,  1833;  Jackson  Papers:  John 
Randolph  to  Jackson,  December  6,  1832;  Jackson  to  Van  Buren, 
January  25,  1833;  James  A.  Hamilton  to  Jackson,  New  York, 
January  22,  1833. 

When  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  of  South  Carolina,  visited  Augusta 
in  January,  Jackson  believed  that  it  was  in  behalf  of  nullification; 
it  was  alleged  that  when  the  steamboat  with  Hamilton  on  board 
got  a  short  distance  from  the  wharf  at  Augusta  the  tricolored  flag  of 
South  Carolina  was  raised  on  the  boat  and  that  the  American  Jack 
reversed  was  placed  under  it.  When  he  heard  of  this  Jackson  said: 
"For  this  indignity  to  the  flag  of  the  country  she  ought  to  have  been 
instantly  sunk,  no  matter  who  owned  or  commanded  her"  (Van 
Buren  Papers:  Silas  Wright,  Jr.,  to  Van  Buren,  January  13,  1833). 


242     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Virginians  were  not  alone  in  their  criticism  of  the 
doctrines  contained  in  the  proclamation.  Some 
men  of  other  states,  most  of  them  in  sympathy 
with  the  President,  believed  that  the  document 
would  have  been  a  better  one  without  the  "specu 
lative  arguments  and  fallacious  opinions  about  the 
origin  of  the  confederation.7'  C.  C.  Cambreleng, 
of  New  York,  wrote  from  Washington : 

We  have  those  here  who  are  now  and  then  Republicans 
from  policy  but  not  one  in  principle — except  the  chief  of 
all.  This  will  account  to  you  for  the  broad  errors  in  doc 
trine  on  some  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Con 
stitution,  which  ornament  the  proclamation,  and  call  forth 
the  unbounded  approbation  of  every  ultra  federalist. 
....  It  was  a  glorious  opportunity  to  reach  every  man 
in  the  nation  but  a  nulliner  ....  [and]  ....  had  the 
proclamation  been  as  empty  and  inflated  as  a  balloon, 
sentiment  would  have  carried  it  through  the  Union  with 
applause. 

A  "general  and  happy  effect"  might  have  been 
made  "universal"  "had  the  metaphysics  of  the 
Montesquieu  of  the  cabinet  been  cut  out  of  it."1 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:  C.  C.  Cambreleng  to  Van  Buren,  December 
18, 1832.  In  another  letter  between  December  10  and  18  Cambreleng 
said:  "Luckily  the  people  do  not  see  what  lawyers  do;  they  don't 
care  how  the  Union  was  formed  nor  are  they  anxious  to  be  instructed 
how  a  state  can  get  out  of  it — they  have  more  sense  than  the  bar." 
See  also  Van  Buren  to  Jackson,  December  27.  The  "Montesquieu  of 
the  cabinet"  was  probably  Edward  Livingston,  Secretary  of  State. 


Jackson  and  Nullification  243 

In  Columbia  the  proclamation  was  received  with 
the  deepest  indignation,  and  the  legislature,  still 
in  session,  immediately  asked  the  governor  to 
issue  a  counter-proclamation  to  warn  the  people 
of  South  Carolina  against  that  of  the  President  and 
exhort  them  to  remain  true  to  the  state.  Robert 
Y.  Hayne  had  been  elected  governor  and  had 
taken  the  new  oath  prescribed  for  that  officer, 
that  he  would  "well  and  truly  keep  and  enforce 
the  ordinance  of  the  state  and  such  laws  as  may 
be  passed  in  obedience  thereto.7'  He  immediately 
issued  his  counter-proclamation,  which  began  by 
calling  upon  the  people  to  be  on  their  guard 
against  the  "dangerous  and  pernicious"  doctrines 
contained  in  the  President's  proclamation,  and 
concluded  with  a  command  for  them  to  support  at 
all  hazards  the  dignity  and  liberties  of  the  state.1 
It  was  an  ably  written  and  strong  paper,  but  the 
Union  men  could  see  no  merit  even  in  its  literary 
composition.  They  ridiculed  it  as  the  height  of 
madness,  caused  by  an  inflated  sense  of  power.2 

1  Mercury,  December  22,  1832;  N lies'  Register,  December  22. 

2  Gazette,  December  2  2 ,  1 83  2 .     The  Union  men  published  a  parody 
on  it,  beginning  thus:   "By  virtue  of  that  palpable  absurdity  which 
has  grown  out  of  the  numerous  'conjunctures'  with  which  it  has 
been  our  fate  to  be  afflicted,  that  as  a  sovereign  state  the  Free  Trade 
Association  'has  the  inherent  power  to  do  all  those  acts  which  by 


244    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 


As  for  the  ordinance  of  nullification,  the  Union 
men  asserted  that  they  were  somewhat  at  a  loss 
what  classification  to  give  to  that  "mad  edict 
of  a  despotic  majority ";  whether  it  was  to  be 


Hoys* -vote,  "December  17,  183 
on  a  resolution  requesting  the 

proclamation   (Countr.    Dec 
ember  K>,  1833): 
lor- 


x 

o 


^ainsl 


Tte  (wcnty-scvun  Onion  Vo»f» 
in  the  convcntiiin,  Novernberr 
58^7,  "against  the  ordinance  of 
nullification  (Cavity  Kttym- 


MAP  VII. — House  vote  on  governor's  counter-proclamation,  and 
Union  vote  in  Convention,  1832. 

considered  as  incorporated  within  the  constitution 
of  the  state,  as  an  act  of  legislation  to  be  recorded 

the  law  of  nations  any  prince  or  potentate  may  of  right  do/  Governor 
Hayne  has  issued  a  proclamation  counter  to  the  one  lately  put 

forth  by  the  President " 

The  accompanying  maps  (VII  and  VIII)  show  those  districts 
whose  delegates  and  representatives  opposed  the  projects  of  the 
Nullifiers.  See  p.  107,  n.  3. 


Jackson  and  Nullification 


245 


in  the  statute  books,  or  as  a  judicial  decision 
to  take  its  place  in  the  next  volume  of  law  reports, 
they  could  not  tell;  this  nondescript  measure 
seemed  to  be  an  odd  and  incongruous  jumble  of 


Houie  vote,  Dtfember,  183 
test  oatH  or  Bill  to  carry  into 
effect  the  otdinwice  of  BulUfi- 

£23  MM""' 


MAP  VIII. — House  vote  on  the  test  oath,  1832 

the  three,  put  together  in  utter  disregard  of  rea 
son  and  right;  some  said,  indeed,  that  it  was  an 
exertion  of  lawless  power  which  should  be  put  down 
by  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  state  or  pros 
trated  by  the  potent  rebuke  of  popular  opinion.1 

1  Courier,  November  29,  1832.  Perry  Collection,  Vol.  IX,  letter 
by  Thomas  S.  Grimke"  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  December  i, 
1832. 


246    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  Union  men  called  a  second  convention  of 
the  party,  which  began  its  sessions  in  Columbia 
on  December  10,  while  the  legislature  was  still 
sitting.  There  appeared  to  be  two  factions  at 
first:  the  conservatives,  who  favored  moderation, 
and  the  radicals,  who  thought  that  the  "  tyranny 
and  oppression  of  the  dominant  party,  the  disgrace 
of  the  test  oath,  and  the  horrors  of  disunion77 
should  be  "  fiercely  combatted."  All  were  soon 
won  over  to  the  belief  that  there  should  be  no 
flinching.  A  plan  was  recommended  for  organiz 
ing  the  Union  men  of  the  state  into  "Washington 
Societies/'  for  self-defense  and  protection;  there 
was  to  be  a  central  society  in  each  district,  with 
as  many  branches  as  possible  in  the  local  neigh 
borhoods.  In  case  of  emergency  these  societies 
were  to  become  military  companies.  Poinsett 
was  made  commander-in-chief,  with  division 
officers  in  different  parts  of  the  state,  and  Colonel 
Robert  Cunningham  was  appointed  for  the  upper 
divisions  of  the  state.  Joel  R.  Poinsett  made  it 
clear  to  the  convention  that  President  Jackson 
indorsed  his  plans,1  and  when  James  O.  Hanlon 
read  part  of  a  letter  from  Jackson  to  the  con 
vention  in  secret  session,  it  seemed  to  inspire 

1  Benjamin  F.  Perry,  Reminiscences  and  Speeches. 


Jackson  and  Nullification  247 

great  courage,  for  "some  cried  out ' enough!7  'what 
have  we  to  fear;  we  are  right  and  God  and  Old 
Hickory  are  with  us.'"1 

This  Union  convention  of  about  180  delegates 
adopted  an  official  protest  against  the  ordinance 
of  nullification.  It  reviewed  the  objections  to 
the  doctrine  of  nullification  and  denounced  the 
ordinance  as  contrary  to  both  the  national  and  the 
state  constitutions,  and  with  special  vigor  decried 
the  test  oath,  which  would  keep  out  of  office  all 
Union  men  who  would  not  perjure  themselves.  It 
declared  that  as  regarded  the  Union  party  the 
ordinance  "betrayed  all  the  features  of  an  odious 
tyranny"  and  that  its  progress  would  be  as  fatal 
to  liberty  as  it  was  to  the  federal  Constitution. 
But  one  more  step  of  the  dominant  party,  it  said, 
was  wanting  to  put  the  1 7,000  friends  of  the  Union, 
so  far  as  the  state  authorities  were  concerned, 
entirely  out  of  the  protection  of  the  law.  In 
regard  to  their  own  program,  the  Union  men 
declared  they  would  maintain  a  peaceable,  inac 
tive  position  as  long  as  possible,  asserting  their 
rights  by  all  legal  and  constitutional  means;  but 
if  crossed  in  this  by  an  attempt  to  enforce -the 
"unconstitutional  and  tyrannically  oppressive" 

1  Jackson  Papers:  James  O.  Hanlon  to  Jackson,  December  20, 1832. 


248    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

parts  of  the  ordinance,  they  would  feel  bound 
to  answer  the  call  to  resistance,  issued  by  an 
"intolerable  oppression/'  and  should  they  be 
forced  to  draw  the  sword,  it  would  be  wielded  in 
defense  of  the  Union.1 

The  President's  proclamation  proved  a  conun 
drum  to  the  State  Rights  men  in  many  ways. 
Some  believed  that  it  would  overawe  many  of 
the  less  ardent  in  the  state,  and  they  there 
fore  made  much  of  Governor  Hayne's  counter- 
proclamation.2  Many  doubted  that  Jackson  had 

1  Courier,    December    21,    1832;     Mountaineer,    December    22. 
Perry  Collection,  Vol.  IX,  "Report  of  the  Union  Convention,  with 
Their  Remonstrance  and  Protest";  Perry  Collection,  Vol.  IX,  letter  to 
the  Union  party  of  South  Carolina,  by  Randell  Hunt,  January  2, 1833. 

That  the  Union  men  were  greatly  stirred  by  the  test  oath  was 
abundantly  testified  by  such  utterances  as  the  following  by  Thomas 
Grimke':  "As  though  in  mockery  of  the  very  name  of  judge  and  trial 
and  jury  as  hitherto  understood,  they  have  bound  the  judge  and  jury 
to  disregard  the  constitutions,  law,  and  evidence,  and  to  decide 
according  to  a  fixed  paramount  rule.  I  envy  not  the  judge  or  jury 
man  who  is  fit  to  be  their  instrument.  Were  I  a  judge  or  juryman, 
before  I  would  pollute  my  soul  and  defile  my  lips  with  such  an 
oath,  this  right  hand  should  be  struck  off  as  a  cockade  for  the  cap  of 
a  dictator,  or  a  sign-board  to  point  the  way  to  the  gibbett"  (Gazette, 
December  15,  1832). 

2  James  O.  Hanlon  wrote^from  Columbia  to  Jackson,  on  December 
20, 1832 :  "I  find  much  excitement  among  the  Nullies  both  in  and  out 
of  the  legislature.     Your  able  and  patriotic  proclamation  has  almost 
given  some  of  them  the  Cholera,  and  it  would  not  show  well  for  them 
to  let  it  pass  in  silence"  (Jackson  Papers). 


Jackson  and  Nullification  249 

intended  more  than  to  frighten  South  Carolina 
and  felt  that  perhaps  his  appeal  to  Congress  for 
more  power  was  simply  to  furnish  a  means  of 
retreat  when  Congress  should  have  repealed  the 
tariff  and  yielded  to  South  Carolina.  A  major 
ity  of  the  leaders,  however,  felt  that  immediate 
military  preparation  was  necessary,  and  many 
men  eagerly  aided  the  governor  in  his  attempts  to 
get  a  force  ready  for  the  field  in  the  shortest  time 
possible.1 

1  The  following  letter  was  written  by  a  man  who  had  been  a 
prominent  editor  of  the  state,  but  who  was  then  a  planter  in  Barnwell 
district,  and  who  for  many  years  was  looked  to,  by  many  in  the  state, 
as  a  man  whose  political  judgment  was  worth  much  (Hammond 
Papers:  Hammond  to  Governor  Hayne, December  20,  1832):  "Gen 
eral  Jackson's  extraordinary  proclamation  has  just  reached  me.  It 
is  the  black  cockade  Federalism  of  '98  renewed,  fearfully  invigorated 
by  its  long  sleep,  and  seems  destined  to  bring  about  another  reign 
of  terror.  Based  as  it  is  upon  the  notoriously  false  assumption 
that  South  Carolina  intends  to  resist  the  laws  of  Congress  with  the 
bayonet,  the  spirit  of  it,  to  every  intelligent  mind,  is  as  ridiculous 
as  its  arguments  are  absurd.  But  there  is  so  much  ignorance  and 
passion  in  the  country  that  both  are  dangerous  at  this  crisis,  and 
must  be  met  promptly,  firmly,  and  efficiently.  To  aid  this  purpose 
permit  me  to  tender  you  my  services  in  any  way  that  you  can  make 
them  most  useful.  I  do  not  seek  from  you  any  post  of  distinction, 
not  only  because  I  can  have  no  claims  to  it,  but  because  at  this 
moment  every  man  must  do  his  duty  to  his  country  without  reference 
to  himself.  I  will  undertake  any  service  you  desire,  and  repair  at 
an  instant's  warning  to  any  point  and  for  any  purpose  you  will 
designate.  I  shall  immediately  set  about  arranging  my  private 


250    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

After  the  middle  of  December  Governor 
Hayne's  office  was  transformed  from  that  of  an 
executive  to  that  of  a  commander-in-chief .  "  Gen 
eral  Orders"  were  issued  from  "Head  Quarters/7 
on  December  20,  1832,  that  in  accordance  with  a 
recent  act  of  the  legislature  the  services  of  patriotic 
citizens  as  volunteers  would  be  accepted,  "either 
individually  or  by  companies,  troops,  battalions, 
divisions,  or  regiments,  of  artillery,  cavalry,  or 
riflemen. ' '  The  governor  on  the  same  day  selected 
prominent  State  Rights  leaders  in  each  district 
and  commissioned  them  in  due  form  as  aides-de- 
affairs  for  taking  the  field  at  an  early  day,  not  to  quit  it  until  all  is 
settled. 

"In  this  part  of  the  country  the  people  are  very  ignorant  and  have 
been  heretofore  rather  inclined  to  the  Union  party,  but  if  you  think 
I  can  be  best  employed  in  recruiting  volunteers  I  will  set  about 
raising  a  company  as  soon  as  I  receive  your  instructions  as  to  the 
time  and  place  [you]  will  want  them,  and  whether  you  can  furnish 
arms,  etc.,  and  will  endeavor  to  have  them  ready  for  service  in  due 
time.  I  have  however  no  choice  of  employment,  so  far  as  I  am 

concerned I  take  it  for  granted  that  you  will  concentrate 

a  large  force  in  Charleston  to  meet  the  emergency.  Permit  me  again 
with  much  humility  to  suggest  that  that  concentration  be  effected 
silently  and  without  parade;  we  have  already  done  enough  to  alarm 
the  more  timid  of  our  friends  and  to  afford  apparent  grounds  of 
justification  for  the  mad  counsels  of  the  President.  At  the  same  time 
care  should  be  taken  to  have  the  force  strong  enough  to  annihilate 
instantaneously  the  first  show  of  resistance  to  our  laws,  and  give  to 
treason  as  well  as  tyranny  so  signal  and  severe  a  rebuke  that  they 
will  not  recover  from  it  soon." 


Jackson  and  Nullification  251 

camp  charged  with  military  duties  in  their  respec 
tive  districts.  They  were  directed  to  inspect 
volunteer  companies  and  to  receive  and  give 
information,  and  were  supplied  with  blank  com 
missions  to  issue  to  the  officers  of  such  companies 
as  were  raised  or  accepted  from  those  already  in 
existence.  They  were  requested  to  make  full  and 
frequent  reports  to  the  governor's  headquarters  at 
Charleston.1 

The  general  plans  of  the  governor,  as  out 
lined  in  a  printed  circular  sent  to  all  the  aides- 
de-camp  as  district  organizers,2  announced  that 
he  wanted  to  raise  a  volunteer  force  not  short 
of  10,000  men.  Measures  were  taken  to  procure 
an  ample  supply  of  arms  of  various  descrip 
tions  to  be  distributed  as  soon  as  secured,  and 
arrangements  were  made  for  the  distribution 
of  books  on  tactics  to  infantry  and  cavalry 
companies.  In  this  circular  letter,  after  mak 
ing  general  explanations  of  the  duties  of  the 
district  aides-de-camp,  the  governor  outlined  a 

1  Hammond    Papers:     commission    from    Governor    Hayne    to 
Colonel  James  H.  Hammond,  December  20,  1832;  letter  from  Hayne 
to  Hammond,  December  21. 

2  The  one  sent  to  Hammond  and  marked  "(Confidential)"  in 
Hayne's  handwriting  is  in  the  Hammond  Papers,  dated  December  26. 
1832. 


252     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

plan  of  "THE  MOST  IMPORTANT  NATURE."    He 
said  : 

The  volunteer  corps  above  alluded  to  are  intended  to 
be  called  out  by  companies,  battalions,  or  regiments,  but 
a  sudden  emergency  may  arise  when  men  may  be  wanted 
at  a  given  point  before  such  corps  can  be  prepared  and 
marched  to  it.  I  deem  it  indispensable,  therefore,  that  a 
body  of  Mounted  Minute  Men  should  be  always  prepared 
to  proceed  in  the  shortest  time  possible  to  any  place 
which  may  be  designated,  to  be  kept  on  duty  for  a  few  days 
or  a  few  weeks,  until  more  regularly  organized  corps  shall 
be  brought  into  the  field.  My  plan  is  this.  Let  a  number 
of  men,  every  one  of  whom  keeps  a  horse,  agree  to  repair 
at  a  moment's  warning  to  any  point  which  may  be  desig 
nated  by  the  governor  in  any  emergency.  Let  them  then 
come  prepared  with  guns  or  rifles,  or  arms  of  any  descrip 
tion,  with  a  supply  of  powder  and  ball,  and  come  in  the 
shortest  time  possible.  If  in  each  district  only  one 
hundred  such  men  could  be  secured,  we  would  have  the 
means  of  throwing  2,500  of  the  elite  of  the  whole  state 
upon  a  given  point  in  three  or  four  days.  And  by  no 
other  means  could  this  be  effected 

To  execute  this  plan,  it  may  be  well  to  select  ten  influ 
ential  men  in  various  parts  of  your  district,  to  be  called 
leaders;  bring  them  fully  into  the  scheme,  and  let  each 
of  them  engage  ten  men  as  their  quota.  When  the  notice 
is  given  to  you,  that  the  minute  men  are  wanted,  you  will 
instantly  inform  the  leaders  and  get  them  to  extend  the 
notice  to  their  respective  squads Have  one  or  more 


Jackson  and  Nullification  253 

expresses  always  at  your  command  and  bear  in  mind  that 
you  will  be  held  responsible  for  the  speedy  and  certain 
extension  and  prompt  execution  of  all  orders.  If  you  need 
assistance  say  so,  for  no  excuse  will  be  received  for  any 

failure,  when  your  services  are  required I  wish 

you  to  see  personally  each  of  the  colonels  and  learn 
everything  within  your  district;  the  temper  of  the 
men;  the  state  of  their  arms;  whether  those  out  of 
order  can  be  repaired  in  your  neighborhood;  and  what 
supplies  exist  of  field-pieces,  muskets,  rifles,  lead,  etc., 
and  generally  everything,  which  it  is  important  for  me 
to  know;  all  of  which  may  be  embraced  in  a  confidential 
report. 

The  district  organizers  soon  enlisted  a  number 
of  men  as  sub-organizers,  who  distributed  circulars 
in  which  appeared  the  governor's  call  for  volun 
teers,  and  did  all  they  could  personally  to  induce 
the  people  to  enlist.  These  men  kept  the  district 
commander  informed  as  to  local  sentiment.  From 
some  quarters  came  reports  that  Jackson's  procla 
mation,  aided  by  the  activity  of  the  Union  men, 
had  done  much  harm,  for  the  people  seemed  to 
think  that  the  President  could  do  all  he  had 
threatened,  and  they  regarded  him  as  in  fact  "the 
AH  Pasha  of  the  United  States."  From  such 
quarters  came  the  advice  that  the  district  organizer 
himself  should  appear  and  renew  the  spirits  of  the 


254    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

people.1  From  other  quarters  came  more  cheer 
ful  news.2  Some  of  the  State  Rights  leaders 
seemed  to  think  that  all  that  was  needed  was  for 
the  people  of  the  state  to  show  a  proper  spirit, 
and  force  would  not  be  used;  but  if  they  faltered, 
a  little  blood  would  be  spilled  to  complete  the 
panic.3 

1  Hammond  Papers:   S.  H.  Butler  to  Hammond,  December  27, 
1832. 

2  Hammond  Papers:   S.  R.  Cannon  to  Hammond,  December  28, 
1832:    ".  .  .  .  the  President's  proclamation  has  been  the  cause  of 
making  us  more  Indignant  towards  him   than   before,    we  have 
commenced  Raising  a  volunteer  corps  of  Rifle  men  and  will  holde  an 
Election  for  Officers  in  few  days  ....  we  are  all  nullifyers  in  this 
Section  and  the  General  fealing  amongst  us  that  will  Put  us  in 
Readiness  at  a  moments  warning " 

3  Hammond  Papers:    S.  H.  Butler  to  Hammond,  December  27, 
1832:  William    C.    Preston   to   Hammond,    December   31.      Pres 
ton,  a  prominent  leader,  wrote  from  Columbia  to  Hammond  on  the 
last  day  of  the  year  that  he  was  much  pleased  with  the  effect  the 
proclamation  was  having  both  in  and  out  of  the  state,  for  party  lines 
were  being  clearly  drawn.     "Thank  God,"  he  wrote,  "we  are  again 
Federalists  and  Republicans.     In  Virginia  especially  the  proclama 
tion  has  wakened  the  people  from  their  trance,  and  they  are  holding 

meetings  in  the  counties,  with  the  rallying  cry  of  '98 My 

private  advices  are  of  the  most  cheering  character;    they  assure  me 
that  whatever  the  legislature  may  do,  it  will  be  believed  the  temper 
of  the  people.     They  tell  me  that  it  is  only  necessary  for  us  to  present 
a  determined  front,  and  all  will  be  well.     We  have  compelled  a  more 
rapid  course  of  thought  than  twenty  years  of  discussion  would  have 
produced.     We  have  shaken  the  tariff  system  more  than  a  thousand 
remonstrances  and  petitions  and  protests.     Their  columns  are  giving 


Jackson  and  Nullification  255 

The  Union  men  were  "  openly  threatened  with 
every  kind  of  violence,"  and  in  a  district  where 
their  number  was  small  they  were  told  that  they 
must  not  assemble  togther,  for  such  action  would 
be  considered  "treason  and  rebellion"  against 
the  sovereignty  of  the  state.1 

Meantime,  Jackson  had  been  waiting  for 
information  that  the  South  Carolina  assembly 
had  passed  laws  for  raising  an  army  to  resist  the 
execution  of  the  United  States  laws.  This  he 

way,  there  is  confusion  in  their  lines;  and  if  we  are  now  true  to  our 
selves,  they  will  be  scattered  to  the  winds.  The  vigorous  pro 
ceedings  of  our  constituted  authorities  has  struck  terror  into  our 
oppressors,  and  the  spirit  of  the  people  bursting  out  in  all  quarters  has 
written  their  destiny  on  the  wall  in  characters  too  plain  to  require  a 
Daniel  for  their  interpretation. 

"In  this  quarter  the  public  enthusiasm  is  more  intense  than  my 
best  hopes  could  have  anticipated.  Everybody  is  volunteering — 
old  and  young,  the  parent  and  his  sons,  rich  and  poor  are  found  in 
the  ranks  shoulder  to  shoulder.  Even  the  ministers  of  the  gospel 
have  turned  soldiers The  town  begins  to  resemble  a  mili 
tary  encampment.  An  equal  enthusiasm,  it  is  said,  pervades  Fair- 
field;  there  they  will  volunteer  by  regiments.  Lexington  will  give 
an  organized  battalion.  The  tyrant  will  find  us  ready  and  dare  not 
strike.  Our  decided  front  will  secure  us  at  once  peace  and  victory. 
The  volunteer  roll  will  decide  the  contest.  We  have  agreed  here  for 
the  sake  of  distinction,  every  volunteer  shall  wear  at  all  times  a  small 
blue  cockade  upon  his  hat,  that  we  may  know  each  other  when  we 


1  Jackson  Papers:   James  O.  Hanlon  to  Jackson,  December  20, 
1832. 


256    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

would  interpret  to  be  "a  levying  of  war"  and  he 
would  ask  Congress— 

for  the  power  to  call  upon  volunteers  to  serve  as  the  posse 
comitatus  of  the  civil  authority,  to  open  our  courts  which 
they  have  shut,  direct  process  to  be  issued  against  the 
leaders,  direct  them  to  be  prosecuted  for  treason,  have 
them  arrested  wheresoever  to  be  found,  delivered  over  to 
the  authority  of  the  law,  to  be  prosecuted,  convicted,  and 
punished.  If  the  assembly  authorises  twelve  thousand 

meet  and  establish  upon  sight  that  sympathy  which  should  exist 
between  men  devoted  to  the  same  glorious  cause.  Let  me  recom 
mend  this  measure  to  you  and  also  that  as  soon  as  there  is  a  com 
pany  organized  in  your  neighborhood  you  inform  me  or  some  other 
friend  here  of  the  fact,  with  names  of  the  officers,  that  we  may  devise 
a  system  of  correspondence  and  union,  which  will  establish  a  com 
munity  of  feeling  and  action  amongst  us.  In  the  meantime  do  write 
me  of  the  movements  and  the  state  of  feeling  in  your  quarter." 

On  the  same  day,  December  31,  1832,  Captain  E.  H.  Maxcy 
in  Columbia  issued  company  orders  to  the  Richland  Volunteer  Rifle 
Company  "  to  hold  themselves  in  readiness  to  march,  at  a  minute's 
warning,  and  without  delay,  to  any  point  in  the  State  which  may  be 
designated  by  the  proper  authority,  to  perform  such  military  service, 
in  defence  of  the  State,  as  may  be  required.  Each  member  will 
forthwith  put  his  rifle  and  accoutrements  in  complete  order,  furnish 
himself  with  a  sufficient  quantity  of  powder  and  ball,  a  coarse  home 
spun  knapsack  with  a  blanket,  and  the  requisite  change  of  clothing. 
Upon  being  notified,  each  man  will  promptly  repair  to  the  Town  Hall, 
to  be  mustered  into  service  at  the  minute  designated.  Upon  the 
reception  of  marching  orders,  a  fieldpiece  will  be  fired  five  times  in 
succession  as  a  signal  for  assembling."  The  company  was  ordered 
to  report  on  Saturday  morning,  January  5,  1833,  "for  drill  and 
target  firing"  (22d  Congress,  2d  session,  House  Document  No.  45, 
p.  112). 


Jackson  and  Nullification  257 

men  to  resist  the  law,  I  will  order  thirty  thousand  to 
execute  the  law.  To  this  I  may  add  the  request  for  the 
custom  house  to  be  removed  to  Castle  Pinckney  on 
Sullivan's  Island,  and  the  power  in  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  demand  the  payment  of  duties  in  cash, 
deducting  the  interests,  from  all  vessels  entering  a  port 
where  the  states  may  have  enacted  laws  to  resist  the 
payment  of  the  duty.1 

By  the  end  of  December  the  President  was 
feeling  even  more  bitterly  on  the  subject.  He 
wrote : 

This  abominable  doctrine,  that  strikes  at  the  root  of 
our  government  and  the  social  compact,  and  reduces 
everything  to  anarchy,  must  be  met  and  put  down  or 
our  Union  is  gone,  and  our  liberties  with  it  forever.  The 
true  Republican  doctrine  is,  that  the  people  are  the  sover 
eign  power,  that  they  have  the  right  to  establish  such  form 
of  government  [as]  they  please,  and  we  must  look  into  the 
Constitution,  which  they  have  established,  for  the  powers 
expressly  granted,  the  balance  being  retained  to  the  people 
and  the  states.  When  we  look  into  the  [Articles  of] 
Confederation  of  the  thirteen  United  States  of  America, 
we  find  there  a  perpetual  union;  and  that  it  might 
last  forever,  we  find  the  express  power  granted  to  Con 
gress  to  settle  all  disputes  that  may  arise  between  the 
states.  What  next — we  find  upon  experience  that  this 
perpetual  union  and  confederation  is  not  perfect.  On 
this  discovery,  "We  the  people  of  these  United  States," 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:  Jackson  to  Van  Buren,  December  15,  1832. 


258    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

"to  form  a  more  perfect  union"  etc.,  etc.,  do  ordain  and 
establish  this  Constitution  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land. 
When  we  look  into  the  instrument  we  can  find  no  reserved 
right  to  nullify  or  secede;  but  we  find  a  positive  provision 
how  it  is  to  be  altered  or  amended.  These  must  be 
adopted  or  it  must  be  changed  by  revolution.  When 
this  is  attempted  by  a  state,  a  perfect  right  remains  in  the 
other  states  and  the  people,  if  they  have  the  power,  to 
coerce  them  to  obey  the  laws  and  preserve  their  moral 
obligations  to  the  other.  Let  us  remark  one  absurdity 
out  of  thousands  that  could  be  named.  Congress  have 
power  to  admit  new  states  into  the  Union;  under  terri 
torial  governments  these  [are]  bound  by  the  laws  of  the 
Union;  new  states  cannot  force  themselves  into  the 
Union;  but  the  moment  they  are  admitted,  they  have  a 
right  to  secede  and  destroy  the  confederation  and  the 
Union  with  it.  The  Virginia  doctrine  brings  me  in  mind 
of  a  bag  of  sand  with  both  ends  opened;  the  moment  the 
least  pressure  is  upon  it,  the  sand  flows  out  at  each  end. 
The  absurdity  is  too  great  to  be  dwelt  on.  The  people 
of  Virginia  are  sound.  The  Union  will  be  preserved 
and  traitors  punished,  by  a  due  execution  of  the  laws, 
by  the  posse  comitatus.1 

Letters  of  this  character  worried  Van  Buren. 
He  feared  that  Jackson,  too  impulsive  by  nature, 
might  lessen  the  chances  of  an  amicable  adjust- 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:  Jackson  to  Van  Buren,  December  23, 
1832.  On  December  25  he  wrote  again  in  much  the  same  manner 
to  Van  Buren. 


Jackson  and  Nullification  259 

ment.  He  therefore,  as  on  many  another  occa 
sion,  advised  caution.  He  urged  especially  that, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  doctrine  of  a  "con 
structive  levying  of  war"  was  " justly  unpopular 
in  this  country,"  the  President  should  hesitate 
to  pronounce  as  treason  the  mere  passage  of 
bills,  and  should  ask  Congress  for  the  power 
to  employ  military  force  only  if  it  was  indispen 
sable  to  the  due  execution  of  the  laws.1 

While  Jackson  was  thinking  so  much  about 
meeting  at  the  threshold  any  danger  to  the  Union, 
Van  Bur  en  and  the  great  majority  of  those  with 
whom  the  President  was  in  correspondence  seem 
to  have  been  thinking  much  more  of  the  political 
phases  of  the  issue.  Although  Jackson  himself 
thought  occasionally  of  the  influence  of  the 
Nullifiers  upon  the  elections,  it  was  far  from 
uppermost  in  his  mind.  During  the  fall  of  1832 
he  felt  confident  that  they  could  do  little  harm 
to  him  or  Van  Buren  outside  of  South  Carolina. 
To  Amos  Kendall  it  appeared  at  first  that  the 
issue  would  have  the  happy  political  effect  of 
uniting  with  the  friends  of  the  administration  all 
parties  in  the  northern,  middle,  and  western  states 
and  a  large  portion  of  the  South,  including  even 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:  Van  Buren  to  Jackson,  December  27,  1832. 


260    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

many  of  the  National  Republicans.  But  upon 
second  thought  he  agreed  with  Van  Buren  that 
they  must  neither  court  the  Nationals  nor  meet 
their  advances.  Webster  and  Calhoun  must  be 
kept  at  arm's  length  on  either  side.1 

They  must  be  on  their  guard  against  Clay  also, 
and  with  this  in  view  as  well  as  for  the  purpose  of 
quieting  South  Carolina  and  preventing  the  spread 
of  sentiment  in  favor  of  a  southern  convention, 
the  tariff  must  be  reduced  in  1833  to  prevent 
"Clay  and  his  satellites"  from  having  about  six 
millions  of  surplus  revenue  to  deal  out  for  internal 
improvements  at  the  long  session  of  1833-34, 
when  all  the  surplus  in  the  treasury  would  become 
a  bribery  fund  for  debauching  the  states  and  buy 
ing  presidential  votes.  Indeed,  Van  Buren  and 
the  New  York  delegation  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  might  win  increased  popularity  by 
having  the  tariff  reduction  come  under  their 
auspices.2 

The  combined  influence  of  the  "  Triumvirs," 
Clay,  Calhoun,  and  Webster,  was  much  to  be 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:  Jackson  to  Van  Buren,  August  30,  October, 
23,  1832;  Amos  Kendall  to  Van  Buren,  November  2,  10. 

2  Van  Buren  Papers:  Thomas  H.  Benton  to  Van  Buren,  December 
16,  1832. 


Jackson  and  Nullification  261 

feared,  if  such  a  strange  combination  were  really 
formed  against  the  administration.  Their  cue 
seemed  to  be  to  refuse  to  reduce  the  tariff  and  lay 
the  blame  on  Van  Buren,  or  reduce  it  and  secure 
the  credit  for  themselves.  It  was  early  seen 
that  when  the  danger  of  a  disruption  of  the  gov 
ernment  should  become  imminent,  Clay  would 
endeavor  to  step  forward  as  the  mediator,  the 
great  pacificator,  and  secure  the  presidency  as  his 
reward.  At  all  events  New  York  was  to  be 
deprived  of  the  credit  for  an  adjustment.  In 
spite  of  such  fears  in  many  quarters,  Van  Buren 
believed  that  if  any  adjustment  of  the  tariff 
were  made  at  the  existing  session  of  Congress,  no 
large  share  of  the  credit  for  it  would  be  given  to 
Clay  and  Calhoun.1 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:  Michael  Hoffman  to  Van  Buren,  December 
19,  1832;  January  4,  1833;  Hoffman  to  A.  C.  Flagg,  January  4; 
M.  Dickerson  to  Van  Buren,  January  1 1 ;  Cambreleng  to  Van  Buren, 
February  5;  Van  Buren  to  Jackson,  February  20;  Jackson  Papers: 
W.  R.  King  to  Van  Buren,  January  9. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
NULLIFICATION  SUSPENDED  (1833) 

Congress  was  in  session  while  South  Carolina 
was  making  her  hostile  preparations.  The  ordi 
nance  of  nullification,  together  with  the  acts  of  the 
legislature  providing  the  means  for  carrying  it  into 
force,  was  to  become  effective  on  February  i, 
1833,  unless,  of  course,  Congress  before  that  date 
repealed  the  protective  features  of  the  tariff. 
Everybody  eagerly  watched  for  indications  of 
such  action. 

William  Drayton  carefully  sounded  the  mem 
bers  of  Congress  and  found  that  with  a  few 
exceptions  from  the  South  and  West  they  were 
opposed  to  nullification  as  "an  absurd  and  mis 
chievous  paradox."  Several  members  of  the 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Georgia  delegations, 
with  some  few  from  other  states,  contended  for 
the  right  of  peaceable  secession  by  a  sovereign 
state,  but  a  large  majority  of  Congress  regarded 
the  right  as  "merely  a  revolutionary  one,  the 
practical  exercise  of  which  the  United  States 
might  and  ought  to  suppress  ....  by  physical 

262 


Nullification  Suspended  263 

force  if  necessary."  Notwithstanding  a  general 
accordance  with  these  sentiments,  all  the  repre 
sentatives  with  whom  Dray  ton  conferred  declared 
their  willingness  and  anxiety  to  co-operate  in  the 
furtherance  of  any  reasonable  expedient  which 
might  prevent  a  conflict  between  South  Carolina 
and  the  federal  government.  To  this  end  "  several 
of  the  thorough-going  tariffites"  told  him  that 
they  "  would  submit  to  great  sacrifices  of  the 
pecuniary  interests  of  the  manufacturers  by  voting 
for  large  deductions  from  the  rate  of  protective 
duties."  This  accounted  for  the  Verplanck  bill. 
Although  the  Senate  was  believed  to  be  less 
favorably  disposed  toward  the  bill  than  the  House, 
Dray  ton  thought  that  all  signs  pointed  to  the 
growing  favor  of  free  trade  everywhere,  and  that 
surely  by  the  next  session,  if  not  in  this  one,  a  satis 
factory  reduction  would  be  made.  He  thought 
that  the  Nullifiers  ought  to  see  this  and  postpone 
action  until  after  the  next  session.1  Calhoun, 
too,  as  the  session  progressed,  thought  that  the 
prospect  was  good  for  a  satisfactory  adjustment 
and  that  the  scheme  of  coercion  would  be  aban 
doned  if  the  South  Carolina  people  continued 
firm  but  prudent  and  gave  no  occasion  for  the 

1  Poinsett  Papers:   Dray  ton  to  Poinsett,  December  31,  1832. 


264    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

use  of  force.1  From  all  sides  came  testimony 
that  everything  was  promising  for  a  reduction 
of  the  tariff,  as  both  parties  now  seemed  to  admit 
the  necessity  of  it.2  The  question  still  remained, 
however:  Would  it  be  a  reduction  acceptable  to 
the  State  Rights  party  ? 

Some  men,  however,  believed  that  no  reduc 
tion  of  the  tariff  would  be  voted,  because  there 
was  a  party  in  the  North  just  as  desirous  of  a 
separation  of  the  sections  as  any  faction  in  South 
Carolina.  According  to  this  view,  the  tariff 
advocates  not  favored  by  the  taxes  desired  dis 
union,  and  the  aristocracy  in  both  sections  saw 
in  disunion  a  "  multiplication  of  offices  and  taxes 
by  which  alone  they  can  live  without  labor  on 
the  sweat  and  toil  of  the  people.7'  Other  men 
believed  that  though  the  existing  Congress  would 
not  reduce  the  tariff,  the  composition  of  the  new 
Congress  guaranteed  a  reduction  which  could  be 
accomplished  by  special  session  in  April  or  May.3 

1  Calhoun  Correspondence:    Calhoim  to  J.  E.  Calhoim,  January 
10,  1833. 

2  Mountaineer,  January  12,  1833;  Messenger,  January  23;  Niles' 
Register,  January  5. 

3  Van  Buren  Papers:  Michael  Hoffman  to  Van  Buren,  December 
7,  19,  1832;  Hoffman  to  A.  C.  Flagg,  December  18;  T.  H.  Benton  to 
Van  Buren,  December  16. 


Nullification  Suspended  265 

Some  of  the  Union  papers,  soon  after  they 
saw  an  inclination  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  yield 
on  the  tariff,  began  to  express  the  hope  that 
Congress  would  not  yield  in  such  a  way  as  to  give 
the  Nullifiers  the  credit  of  a  victory.  Writers  in 
these  papers  pointed  out  that  if  Congress  yielded 
to  the  usurpation  of  undelegated  power  by  a  party 
which  never  fairly  represented  the  "  honest 
desires  and  opinions  of  the  state/7  so  long  as  the 
ordinance  and  acts  of  nullification  remained  unre- 
pealed;  if  it  should  be  intimidated  into  concessions 
by  the  South  Carolina  hotspurs;  then  the  people 
would  know  that  thenceforth  a  supreme  law  of  the 
land  could  be  made  void  by  a  state  convention 
"fraudulently  obtained"  whenever  it  might  suit 
the  purpose  of  a  few  ambitious  individuals.1 

The  State  Rights  party  then  accused  the 
Unionists  of  being  in  league  with  the  northern 

1  Mercury,  January  3,  1833;  Gazette,  January  3.  Such  assertions 
that  the  convention  had  been  "fraudulently  obtained"  and  did  not 
fairly  represent  "the  honest  desires  and  opinions  of  the  state"  were 
untrue,  for  they  were  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  people  were 
deceived  by  the  nullification  leaders  and  tricked  into  voting  for  a 
convention,  feeling  confident  that  it  would  adopt  a  "peaceable" 
remedy.  The  greater  part  of  the  people  who  voted  for  the  con 
vention  secured  in  its  action  just  what  they  wanted  and  expected. 
That  these  acts  produced  results  different  from  those  anticipated 
was  beside  the  point. 


266    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

manufacturers  to  prevent  a  tariff  reduction,  and  de 
clared  that  if  the  present  session  of  Congress  failed 
to  modify  the  tariff  as  the  South  demanded,  and 
bloodshed  and  disunion  followed,  the  Union  party 
would  be  responsible.  They  insisted  that  the 
Union  party  had  at  last  disclosed  its  true  colors 
by  hoisting  the  "genuine  Black  Flag  of  Tariff- 
ism."  They  claimed  that  a  review  of  the  course 
followed  by  the  Union  party  would  show  that 
it  had  continually  tried  to  reconcile  the  state 
to  the  tariff,  and  had  in  fact  encouraged 
the  northern  manufacturers  to  persist  in  their 
course.1 

The  Union  party  answered  that  it  was  still,  as 
it  had  been,  bitterly  opposed  to  the  tariff,  and 
wanted  every  possible  constitutional  means  em 
ployed  to  remove  it,  but  that  it  did  not  want  the 
tariff  lowered  under  the  menace  of  the  nullification 
ordinance.  Not  a  few  of  the  Union  men  felt  as 
Drayton  did,  that  if  the  tariff  reduction  then 
being  considered  were  passed,  and  the  Nullifiers  in 
consequence  thereof  should  suspend  all  further 
proceedings  under  the  recent  laws  of  the  legis 
lature,  the  gratification  of  these  Union  men  at 
the  partial  or  total  repeal  of  the  protective  system 

1  Mercury,  January  3,  7,  1833;   Messenger,  January  16. 


Nullification  Suspended  267 

would  be  not  a  little  diminished  because  of  the 
triumph  it  would  afford  the  Nullifiers;  for  they 
"  would  ascribe  to  their  own  miserable  sophistry 
and  corrupting  intrigues  this  abandonment  of  a 
system  which,  without  their  conventional  and 
legislative  usurpations,  was  already  expiring, 
from  the  conviction  which  for  a  considerable  time 
past"  had  "been  spreading  among  the  people 
even  in  the  tariff  states,  that  its  foundations" 
were  "built  upon  selfishness  and  monopolizing 
cupidity."1 

The  State  Rights  party  then  pointed  out  that 
the  position  of  the  Union  party  meant  that  it  stood 
for  an  "unlimited  central  consolidated  govern 
ment/'  with  the  states  absolutely  at  its  mercy.2 
In  order  further  to  prove  that  the  Union  party 
was  in  league  with  the  central  government,  the 
State  Rights  presses  made  much  of  a  story  that, 
according  to  the  confessions  of  Union  men  them 
selves,  the  President's  proclamation  and  all  of  his 

1  Poinsett  Papers:  Drayton  to  Poinsett,  January  13,  1833; 
Courier,  January  4,  8,  1833;  Patriot,  January  n,  14.  Poinsett  looked 
upon  this  as  a  consideration  of  minor  importance  (Jackson  Papers: 
Poinsett  to  Jackson,  January  7). 

3  Mercury,  January  8,  1833.  And  this  pointed  out,  indeed,  the 
real  issue;  it  was  the  old  question  of  adjustment  of  power  between 
the  central  government  and  the  states. 


268    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

plans  in  handling  the  South  Carolina  situation 
had  been  and  still  were  concocted  in  Charleston 
by  the  Union  party.1 

Even  though  things  did  look  promising  at 
Washington,  the  State  Rights  men  went  ahead 
with  their  military  organization.  From  many 
parts  of  the  state  came  reports  to  the  governor 
that  men  were  volunteering  readily  for  the 
militia,  and  that  new  companies  were  being 
formed.2  Details  were  being  perfected  for  a 
movement  of  troops  from  the  interior  to  the  coast; 
depots  of  supplies  of  bacon,  fodder,  corn,  etc., 
were  established  on  the  lines  of  march  decided 
upon  for  the  various  companies,  battalions,  and 
regiments.3  In  some  districts  the  degree  of 
enthusiasm  desired  by  the  State  Rights  leaders 
was  lacking,  and  it  was  difficult  to  get  a  company 
of  minute  men  willing  to  make  the  sacrifices 

1  Telescope,  January  8,  1833;    Messenger,  January  2;    Mercury, 
January  u. 

2  The  Hammond  Papers  contain  some  orders  coming  from,  and 
reports  going  to,  William  E.  Hayne,  assistant  adjutant  inspector- 
general  at  Charleston,  as  to  the  organization  of  the  army.    Letters 
by  Hammond  to  Governor  Hayne,  January  8,  1^833,  and  to  William 
C.  Preston,  January  10,  show  that  this  work  was  kept  up  unceasingly. 
See  Mercury,  January  5,  14;  Messenger,  January  9,  23,  February  2. 

s  Hammond  Papers:  Francis  W.  Pickens  to  Hammond,  January 
14,  1833;  Hammond  to  Pickens,  January  18. 


Nullification  Suspended  269 

entailed.1  All  of  this  preparation  was  formidable 
enough  to  cause  many  citizens  to  leave  the  state.3 
During  January  the  President  was  often  in 
formed  of  the  trend  of  affairs  in  South  Carolina, 
and  he  became  ever  more  convinced  of  the 

1  Hammond  Papers:  Hammond  to  Governor  Hayne,  January  23, 
1833 :  "The  people  of  Barnwell  are  generally  very  poor,  and,  though 
staunch  yeomanry,  not  generally  so  public  spirited  I  find  as  some  of 
our  neighbors.     If  drafted  there  is  not  a  Nullifier  in  the  district  and 
few  Union  men  who  would  not  cheerfully  take  up  arms;  they  would 
make  soldiers  that  might  be  depended  on;  but  as  to  volunteering,  they 
do  not  understand  it  and  are  not  inclined  to  put  themselves  to  un 
necessary  trouble.     The  fact  is  that  there  are  not  intelligent  men 
enough  sprinkled  about  to  stir  them  up,  and  that  they  have  gone 
right  heretofore  I  attribute  to  mere  instinct.     Whenever  they  can  be 
collected  together  I  have  never  failed  to  produce  some  ardor  among 
them;  but  in  so  large  a  district,  so  sparsely  populated,  it  is  difficult 
to  get  them  together,  and  they  know  so  little  of  the  matter  that  one 
exhortation  does  not  last  long.     I  mentioned  these  things  to  show 
you  why  there  has  not  been  so  spontaneous  a  burst  of  patriotism  here 
as  elsewhere." 

2  The  Sumter  Whig  stated  that  if  the  tide  of  emigration  from  that 
district  continued  as  it  had  gone  on  for  the  past  two  months,  Sumter 
would  soon  literally  be  a  waste  and  howling  wilderness.     And  it  was 
a  matter  deemed  worthy  of  remark  that  it  was  not  the  Union  men 
generally — the  "spiritless  submissionists,"  as  they  had  been  scorn 
fully  termed — but  chiefly  the  "brave  spirits,  the  pinks  of  chivalry, 
the  fire  and  brimstone  eaters,"  who  had  "suddenly  been  enlightened 
as  to  the  vast  advantages  of  the  western  country,  and  were  leaving 
South  Carolina  in  the  midst  of  her  troubles."     "They  were  going 
to  leave  the  glorious  triumph  of  nullification  behind  them  and  seek  a 
continuance  of  their  oppressions  in  the  West,"  the  Mountaineer  put 
it.     See  Mountaineer,  January  12,  1833;  Niks1  Register,  January  19. 


270    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

necessity  of  prompt  and  effective  measures. 
"The  modern  doctrine  of  nullification  and  seces 
sion  [must  be]  put  down  forever,  for  we  have  yet 
to  learn  whether  some  of  the  eastern  states  may 
not  secede  or  nullify  if  the  tariff  is  reduced.  I 
have  to  look  at  both  ends  of  the  Union  to  preserve 
it."  He  must,  he  declared,  at  once  ask  Congress 
to  give  the  United  States  officers  power  sufficient 
to  thwart  the  Nullifiers.  Their  leaders  were  to  be 
prosecuted  for  treason,  and  if  they  were  "sur 
rounded  by  12,000  bayonets,  our  marshall"  should 
"be  aided  by  24,000  and  arrest  them  in  the  midst 
thereof.  Nothing  must  be  permitted  to  weaken 
our  government  at  home  or  abroad."  He  was 
said  to  believe  that  no  tariff  bill  could  prevent  an 
open  rupture,  but  to  hope  that  one  might  be 
passed  which  would  keep  the  other  southern  states 
quiet  while  he  disciplined  "Messrs.  Calhoun, 
Hamilton,  and  Hayne";  without  any  bill,  much 
was  to  be  feared  from  the  whole  South,  including 
even  Tennessee.  The  Secretary  of  War  was  said 
to  agree  with  this  view.1 

Jackson's  plan  did  not  thoroughly  satisfy  the// 
Unionists  of  Charleston,  for  they  were  disinclined  [ 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:   Jackson  to  Van  Buren,  January  13,  1833;, 
Silas  Wright,  Jr.,  to  Van  Buren,  January  13. 


Nullification  Suspended  271 

to  join  in  mortal  conflict  wit^theij^-adversaries  -as 
a  part  of  a  posse  comitatus  called  out  by  the 
United  States  marshal.  "  There  is  scarcely  a  fam 
ily  wherein  some  member  is  not  in  the  opposite 
ranks,"  wrote  Poinsett.  They  feared  that  such 
a  plan  would  not  succeed,  and  that  they  would 
find  themselves  prisoners  of  the  state.  They  pre 
ferred  that  the  marshal  and  the  federal  judge 
should  certify  that  they  could  not  execute  the 
law,  whereupon  the  President  could  call  out  the 
militia  and  the  Unionists  would  obey  the  call. 
They  would  continue  their  military  organization, 
though  at  the  disadvantage  of  having  to  do  it 
secretly,  and  would  be  prepared  to  go  into  open 
warfare  with  the  aid  of  the  general  government. 
They  should,  they  held,  be  prepared  to  strike  the 
moment  troops  began  to  move  from  the  interior 
toward  Charleston,  for  if  the  Nullifiers  were  per 
mitted  to  occupy  the  city,  it  would  cost  much 
blood  to  dislodge  them.1 

As  the  time  approached  when  the  ordinance 
of  nullification  would  go  into  effect,  things  were 
still  unsettled  in  Congress,  but  there  was  a  good 
prospect  of  a  satisfactory  adjustment  if  a  little 
more  time  were  given.  This  circumstance, 

1  Jackson  Papers:  Poinsett  to  Jackson,  January  16,  20,  1833. 


272     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

together  with  the  fact 'that  the  State  Rights  mili 
tary  force  had  few  arms  as  yet  and  was  in  a  state 
of  organization  by  no  means  efficient,  caused 
the  State  Rights  men  to  think  that  it  would  be 
best  to  postpone  the  date  for  putting  the  ordinance 
into  action.  A  meeting  of  the  party  was  held  in 
Charleston  on  Januar^lzi^  At  trns~Tneeting  were 


many  m^n^vvhe-^er^oofeerrTrpon  as  the  leaders  of 
the  party  and  whose  word  was  in  fact  the  party 
law.  I  A  set  of  resolutions  was  introduced,  sup 
ported  by  these  men,  and  adopted  by  the  meeting, 
recommending  that  a  collision  with  the  federal 
government  should  be  avoided  until  Congress 
had  had  an  opportunity  to  modify  the  tariff,  and 
declaring  that  in  case  a  satisfactory  modification 
did  not  follow,  state  action  was  to  proceed.) 
The  President  and  his  measures  received  their 
customary  share  of  denunciation.  General  James 
Hamilton,  Jr.,  spoke  earnestly  for  the  resolutions, 
and  said  that  he  had  a  cargo  of  sugar  coming 
from  Havana,  which  he  would  allow  to  go  into  the 
custom-house  stores  and  await  events;  he  would 
cause  no  unnecessary  collision,  but  he  felt  sure 
that,  if  their  hopes  of  a  satisfactory  adjustment 
of  the  question  were  disappointed,  his  fellow- 
citizens  would  go  even  to  death  with  him  for  his 


Nullification  Suspended  273 

sugar.  This  was  greeted  with  a  unanimous  burst 
of  applause,  and  "even  to  death  with  Hamilton 
for  his  sugar "  became  a  slogan.1 

There  were  also  other  considerations  which 
prompted  delay.  It  was  pointed  out  that  they 
could  now  pause  in  honor,  since  the  President's 
message  of  January  16,  asking  for  acts  of  Con 
gress  to  give  him  additional  power  to  use  in  case 
of  conflict  with  South  Carolina,  was  a  consider 
able  descent  from  the  lofty  position  assumed  in  his 
proclamation.2  The  Nullifiers  maintained  that 
the  President's  last  message  fairly  admitted  the 
peaceful  character  of  nullification  under  existing 
laws,  for  it  seemed  to  require  extraordinary 
legislation  to  give  either  the  President  or  the  col 
lector  any  lawful  means  to  counteract  the  state's 

ordinance.  J  Then,  too,  there  had  been  received 

/i 

from  various  quarters  in  other  southern  states 
reports  that  the  doctrine  of  nullification  was  not 
regarded  favorably,  and  the  state  of  Virginia, 
through  its  legislature,  had  requested  South 
Carolina  to  desist,  at  least  temporarily/  and  had 
sent  a  special  messenger,  Benjamin  W.  Leigh,  in 
an  effort  toward  mediation.  Many  there  were 

1  Mercury,  January  23,  1833. 
3  Mercury,  January  21,  23,  1833. 


274     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

who  believed  that  Virginia  and  the  other  southern 

states  deserved  at  least  the  concession  of  a  pause.1 

Others  there  were,  however,  who  stood  with  the 

,    district  of  Barn  well,  which,  prompted  by  James! 

j  IJ^Jfemrnond,  had  expressed  itself  in  favor  of  the  / 
rejection  of  any  mediation  from  other  states  urY 
ging  a  suspension  of  the  ordinance,  unless  it  was 
accompanied  by  a  pledge  to  prevent  the  enforci- 
ment  of  the  tariff  within  their  limits  if  it  was  not 
repealed  in  a  given  time.2  The  views  of  tlie 
radicals,  who  w^ere  for  yielding  not  at  all,  were 
expressed  by  Hammond  when  he  wrote : 

I  am  satisfied  that  every  stratagem  will  be  resorted 
to  by  the  administration  to  induce  South  Carolina  to 
suspend  her  ordinance  and  I  am  not  sure  that  a  majority  of 
the  politicians  in  power  in  Virginia  are  not  corrupt  enough 
to  prostitute  her  to  this  purpose,  without  intending  to  do 
more  than  prostrate  our  state  if  possible.  Let  the  ordi 
nance  be  suspended  and  their  game  is  manifest.  The 

1  Journal,  January  19,  February  9,  1833;    Courier,  February  2; 
Niles'  Register,  February  9.     When  the  force  bill  and  the  compromise 
tariff  were  before  Congress,  Leigh  confessed  that  if  the  former  should 
pass  and  the  latter  fail,  South  Carolina  would  probably  not  listen 
to  the  voice  of  Virginia;   if  the  Nullifiers  did  "go  on,"  the  eastern 
part  of  Virginia  would  remain  neutral  and  the  western  section  would 
take  part  against  them.     See  Jackson  Papers:  Poinsett  to  Jackson, 
February  9. 

2  Hammond  Papers:    Hammond  to  Preston,  January  10,  1833; 
Preston  to  Hammond,  January  14. 


Nullification  Suspended  275 

tariff  will  be  so  lowered  as  to  take  away  (it  is  hoped)  the 
chief  cause  of  our  excitement,  and  render  it  impossible 
to  get  the  people  ever  again  to  nullify.  The  principle 
however  is  to  remain  untouched,  and  after  a  few  years  of 
respiration  the  assault  again  to  be  made  upon  our  purses 
and  our  liberty.1 

And  this,  in  fact,  proved  a  fair  prophecy  of  what 
<jlid  take  place.  Hammond  believed  that  the 
people  of  South  Carolina  were  now  ready  to 
Nullify  a  protecting  tariff  of  even  i  per  cent,  but 
t^iat  the  other  states  would  accept  a  slight 
reduction  of  the  tariff  and  that  South  Caro 
lina  would  then  lose  the  formidable  power  she 
derived  from  the  sympathy  of  fellow-sufferers. 
Nullification  would  then  surely  end  in  civil 
war. 

The  resolutions  of  the  meeting  of  the  State 
Rights  party  of  the  Charleston  congressional 
and  judicial  districts,  with  a  speaker  or  two  from 
the  interior,  were  indorsed  by  the  party  at  large, 
and  nullification  was  suspended  without  further 
formality.  Thereupon  Union  men  remarked  that 
the  sovereignty  of  the  state  was  in  an  awkward 
predicament.  The  Charleston  State  Rights  con 
vocation  had  apparently  determined  its  supremacy 

1  Hammond  Papers:  Hammond  to  Preston,  January  10,  1833. 


276    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

over  the  convention.  The  injunctions  laid  by  the 
convention  on  the  citizen  were  positive  that  he 
should  pay  no  duties  under  the  acts  of  1828  and 
1832  after  February  i ;  but  this  solemn  determina 
tion  of  the  sovereignty  of  South  Carolina  had 
been  superseded.  The  Union  men  were  pleased 
with  the  moderation  of  the  State  Rights  party  in 
recommending  to  its  members  that  they  refrain 
from  contention  while  the  subject  of  the  tariff 
was  so  near  a  settlement ;  but  that  such  a  recom 
mendation  proceeded  from  a  local  meeting  showed 
in  what  inconsistency  the  party  had  involved 
itself.1 

\  Even  though  the  process  of  nullification  had 
been  suspended,  the  Nullifiers  continued  their 
recruiting,  for  along  with  the  plans  for  tariff  re 
form  the  Wilkins  force  bill  had  been  introduced, 
to  provide  for  the  forcible  collection  of  the  duties, 
if  necessarv/f"  Parades  arioTrevTews  were  staged  to 
arouse  interest  and  encourage  enlistment.  James 
H.  Hammond,  a  district  commander,  reported  in 
the  first  week  of  February  that  the  commander- 
in-chief  could  count  on  850  men  in  Barn  well, 
about  two-thirds  of  the  fighting  men;  in  the 
last  week  in  the  same  month  he  reported  that 

1  Patriot,  January  23,  1833. 


Nullification  Suspended  277 

925   had  volunteered.1    To  the  first  report  he 
added : 

The  late  movements  in  Congress  have  excited  the  people 
very  much,  and  if  Wilkins'  bill  becomes  a  law  they  will  be 
prepared  for  anything.  The  decided  impression  now  is 
that  there  will  be  a  war,  and  the  idea  appears  to  excite 
the  people.  The  shock  that  was  felt  upon  the  first  indica 
tion  of  settling  our  controversy  with  the  sword  is  wearing 
off  and  there  is  every  prospect  of  as  much  unanimity 
among  the  people  on  this  question  as  any  of  a  political 
character  whether  of  war  or  peace  that  was  ever  proposed 
to  them. 

In  commenting  on  the  spirit  at  a  recent  review, 
at  which  speeches  by  himself,  William  C.  Preston, 
and  S.  H.  Butler  did  much  to  "make  the  people 
sound,"  Hammond  said: 

Every  one  seemed  ready  to  fight,  and  all  appear  ani 
mated  by  a  most  thorough  conviction  that  we  are  uncon 
querable.  I  am  sure  the  difficulty  with  us  will  not  be  the 
want  of  men  but  officers  and  means.  It  will  take  one 
year  at  least  to  make  our  army  efficient  in  point  of  dis 
cipline.  The  United  States  have  greatly  the  advantage 
in  this  respect,  and  no  human  power  can  remedy  the  defect 
at  once.  We  should  by  all  means  have  a  military  depart 
ment  in  the  college.  In  regard  to  money  it  is  important 
to  be  looking  out  even  now.  We  shall  certainly  have  to 

1  Hammond  Papers:  Hammond  to  Hayne,  February  7,  24,  1833. 


278    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

borrow  money,  and  the  moment  a  blow  is  struck  negotia 
tions  should  be  set  on  foot  for  straining  our  credit  to  the 
utmost  at  once,  when  it  will  be  best.  In  the  meantime 
the  private  resources  of  the  Whigs  should  be  taken  into 
consideration.  On  this  point,  I  wish  to  speak  for  myself 
at  once.  I  hold  my  property,  all  of  it,  as  much  at  the 
service  of  the  state  as  my  life;  but  to  calculate  on  some 
thing  short  of  extremities  I  think  I  can  furnish  you  next 
year  with  the  proceeds  of  an  hundred  bales  of  cotton.  I 
did  think  of  making  a  large  provision  crop,  but  reflecting 
that  I  was  on  the  frontier  of  Georgia  and  flanked  on  all 
sides  with  Union  men  I  thought  perhaps  it  would  be  safer 
to  plant  cotton  and  furnish  the  state  with  the  proceeds.  If 
the  seasons  are  ordinary  I  can  afford  to  give  at  least  one 
hundred  bales  without  depriving  myself  of  the  means 
of  meeting  the  contingent  expenses  of  my  official  situation. 
For  this  I  will  take  the  state's  certificate,  or  no  certificate 
if  the  times  require  it.  If  it  should  be  preferred,  I  would 
cheerfully  turn  over  to  the  service  of  the  state,  from  the 
time  the  first  movement  is  made,  all  my  efficient  male 
force  to  be  employed  in  ditching,  fortifying,  building,  etc. 
— of  course  not  to  bear  arms,  which  would  be  dangerous 
policy  to  be  justified  only  by  the  greatest  extremities. 
....  I  trust  no  resort  will  be  made  now  at  least  to 
increased  taxation;  the  people  would  not  bear  it  what 
ever  our  descendants  may  have  to  do.1 

1  Hammond  Papers:  Hammond  to  Hayne,  February  7,  1833. 
Here  was  a  young  planter,  but  lately  married,  willing  to  give  not 
merely  his  services  but  his  whole  means  of  support  to  the  cause  of 
the  state.  A  most  bitter  and  intense  spirit  of  hostility  to  the  North 
was  being  developed,  which  may  well  be  taken  into  account  in  con- 


Nullification  Suspended  279 

One  great  obstacle  which  the  Nullifiers  met 
in  organizing  their  military  force  was  a  lack  of 
arms.  Governor  Hayne  sent  out  word  that  the 
demand  for  arms  exceeded  five  times  the  number 
in  the  possession  of  the  state.  "Our  supplies/' 
he  wrote,  "come  in  slowly;  we  have  no  manu 
factories,  and  indeed  the  finances  of  the  state 
would  be  exhausted  in  procuring  half  the  number 
of  arms  that  have  been  called  for.  You  will  see 
at  once,  therefore,  that  a  strong  appeal  must  be 
made  to  the  patriotism  of  the  people  to  furnish 
themselves  with  arms  and  equipments."  He 
believed  that  what  arms  the  state  did  possess  must 
be  husbanded  until  actual  work  in  the  field  was 
needed;  this  was  a  precaution  necessary  to  keep 
them  in  the  best  of  condition.  However,  a  small 
issue  was  made  to  supply  some  of  those  troops  who 
could  not  supply  themselves.  James  H.  Ham 
mond  reported  in  reply  to  Governor  Hayne  that 
it  was  in  vain  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  patriotism 

sidering  the  conflict  of  three  decades  later.  When  the  editor  of  the 
Columbia  Telescope  heard  that  a  New  York  militia  corps  had  volun 
teered  to  aid  the  President  in  sustaining  the  laws  of  the  Union,  he 
sent  a  challenge  demanding  that,  in  case  nullification  proved  a 
bloodless  affair,  the  officers  at  least  of  that  corps  should  have  an 
opportunity  to  fight;  for  a  southern  antagonist,  he  said,  would  be 
furnished  for  every  one  of  their  officers,  from  colonel  to  corpoial 
(Niles*  Register,  February  9,  1833). 


280    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

of  more  than  one  man  in  fifty  for  the  purchase  of 
arms.  Such  as  they  had,  the  people  would  use 
and  use  well,  but  they  were  too  poor  to  buy. 
Whenever  they  were  called  into  regular  service, 
the  state  must  expect  to  arm  them,  if  they  were 
to  act  efficiently.  They  might  skirmish  in  the 
woods  and  harass  invaders  with  their  shotguns, 
but  they  could  not  stand  a  moment  in  the  field 
before  a  regular  force  properly  equipped.1 

It  was  even  rumored  among  the  Unionists  that 
the  British  consul  in  Charleston,  who  was  said 
to  be  a  Nullifier,  had  assured  his  friends  that  he 
had  written  to  the  commander  of  the  British 
squadron  in  the  West  Indies  requesting  him  to 
send  some  war  vessels  to  Charleston  harbor  to 
protect  the  persons  and  property  of  English  sub 
jects.  Whatever  the  pretext,  said  the  Unionists, 
the  appearance  of  such  a  force  would  encourage 
the  Nullifiers,  for  their  leaders  had  led  them  to 
believe  that  in  a  contest  with  the  federal  govern 
ment  they  would  receive  the  aid  of  Great  Britain.2 

Meanwhile  the  Union  party  was  not  inactive, 
for  many  believed  that,  if  the  tariff  bill  failed  to 

1  Hammond  Papers:   Hayne  to  Hammond,  February  12,  1833; 
Hammond  to  Hayne,  February  24. 

2  Jackson  Papers:  Poinsett  to  Jackson,  February  9,  1833. 


Nullification  Suspended  281 

!  satisfy  the  Nullifiers,  civil  war  in  South  Carolina 
1,  was  almost  certain.  Though  many  Nullifiers 
still  believed  that  they  could  settle  all  differences 
peaceably  by  a  simple  declaration  of  secession, 
to  William  Dray  ton  at  Washington  it  seemed  evi 
dent  that  Congress  would  not  permit  South  Caro 
lina  to  withdraw  from  the  Union,  whatever  might 
be  the  opinion  of  the  Nullifiers  as  to  the  abstract 
right  of  a  state  to  secede.1  The  Union  men  saw 
the  necessity  of  organization,  and  held  frequent 
meetings  both  in  the  districts  where  they  were  in 
a  majority  and  in  those  where  they  were  not; 
"Union  Societies"  began  to  be  formed  all  over 
the  state.2  The  resolutions  adopted  by  these 
meetings  disapproved  of  the  entire  plan  of  action 
taken  by  the  Nullifiers  in  the  convention  and  the 
legislature,  praised  the  President  for  his  policy, 
and  pledged  the  members  of  the  party  to  remain 
true  to  the  Union  and  never  to  take  up  arms 
against  the  Stars  and  Stripes.  The  Union  press 
considered  that  the  elections  for  sheriff  in  several 
districts  in  January  showed  a  gain  for  their  party.3 

1  Poinsett  Papers:   Drayton  to  Poinsett,  January  13,  1833. 

2  Mountaineer,  January  5,   12,   19,  February  9,   1833;    Patriot, 
January  14;  Journal,  February  2;  Messenger,  January  30. 

3  Mountaineer,  January  26,  1833;  Journal,  February  2. 


282     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

(The  absorbing  interest  of  everybody  seemed  to  be  \$ 
the  support  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  parties;^ 
small  boys  in  the  streets  and  ministers  in  the 
pulpits  wore  cockades  showing  their  affiliations.1 
In  several  districts  of  the  interior  Union  men 
predominated  in  the  militia  companies  and  pre 
vented  them  from  being  counted  among  the  re 
sources  of  the  Nullifiers.2  )  /The  Union  party,  too, 
was  making  an  attempt  at  military  organization. 
Their  work  had  of  necessity  to  be  more  secret] ) 
Joel  R.  Poinsett  seemed  to  be  known  to  be  the 
leader  of  the  Union  forces,  and  some  Union  com 
panies  were  formed,  but  not  so  many  as  among  the 
majority  party.3  Though  some  of  the  Union  men 
were  so  apprehensive  that  they  sent  their  valuables 
to  the  North  lest  the  Nullifiers  confiscate  them, 
the  Nullifiers  were  also  disquieted  because  in  some 
few  districts  the  Union  military  organization  took 
on  a  formidable  character.4 

1  Journal,  February  2,  1833;   Mountaineer,  February  23. 

2  Mountaineer,  February  16,  23,  1833. 

3  Poinsett  Papers:  Lee  to  Poinsett,  January  21, 1833;  other  letters 
in  January  and  February. 

*  Niles'  Register,  February  9,  1833;  Messenger,  February  2.  In 
a  speech  by  Wilson,  of  Charleston,  in  the  convention  in  March, 
referred  to  below,  Horry,  Chester,  Greenville,  Spartanburg,  and 
Charleston  were  especially  mentioned  as  districts  where  the  Union 
organization  was  very  strong. 


Nullification  Suspended  283 

The  Union  men  had  as  a  constant  source  of 
encouragement  the  assurance  of  help  from  the 
President  when  needed.;  Jackson,  however, ^did 
not  wish  to  interfere  by  giving  the  aid  of  federal 
troops,  unless  that  course  was  positively  neces 
sary.  \fle  hoped  to  see  the  Union  patriots  of 
South  Carolina  themselves  put  down  nullifica- 
tion,\|save  the  character  of  the  state,  and  add 
thereby  to  the  stability  of  the  Union.  He 
wished,  nevertheless,  to  be  kept  constantly  in 
formed  of  the  action  of  the  Nullifiers ;  and  he  was 
prepared,  the  moment  they  should  be  in  hostile 
array  against  the  execution  of  the  laws,  forth 
with  to  order  the  arrest  and  prosecution  of  the 
leaders;  the  first  act  of  treason  committed, 
when  the  first  armed  force  should  appear  in  the 
field  to  sustain  the  ordinance,  would,  he  believed, 
call  to  its  support  all  those  who  had  aided  and 
abetted  in  the  excitement;  he  could  then  " strike 
at  the  head  and  demolish  the  monster,  nullification 
and  secession,  at  the  threshold  by  the  power  of 
the  law." 

Then}'  if  any  forcible  resistance  were  encoun 
tered,  he  would  at  once  call  into  the  field  such  a 
force  as  would  overawe  it;  "put  treason  and  re 
bellion  down  without  blood,"  and  arrest  and  hand 


284    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

over  to  the  judiciary  for  trial  and  punishment 
the  "  leaders,  exciters,  and  promoters  of  this  rebel 
lion  and  treason."  On  receiving  official  notice 
of  the  assemblage  of  a  force  in  Charleston,  armed 
to  resist  the  laws,  he  would  have  in  Charleston, 
in  ten  or  fifteen  days  at  the  latest,  from  ten  to 
fifteen  thousand  organized  troops,  well  equipped 
for  the  field,  and  from  twenty  to  thirty  thousand 
more  in  the  interior.  He  reported  to  the  Union 
men  that  he  had  had  a  tender  of  volunteers  "from 
every  state  in  the  Union,"  and  could,  "if  need  be, 
which  God  forbid,  march  200,000  men  in  forty 
days  to  quell  any  and  every  insurrection  or  rebel 
lion  that  might  arise  to  threaten  our  glorious  con 
federacy  and  Union,  upon  which  our  liberty, 
prosperity,  and  happiness  rest."  \\He  felt  con 
vinced  that  the  whole  nation,  from  Maine  to 
Louisiana,  including  even  Virginia,  would  unitedly 
stand  behind  him  in  the  position  he  had  taken.\ 

1  See  Poinsett  Papers:  Drayton  to  Poinsett,  December  31,  1832; 
Jackson  to  Poinsett,  January  16,  24,  February  7,  17,  1833.  In 
short,  Jackson  was  proving  the  truth  of  the  picture  which  George 
McDuffie  had  drawn  of  him  a  few  years  previously,  in  the  days  before 
"the  mist  of  nullification  ....  overspread  his  imagination":  "In 
a  word,  if  I  were  called  upon  to  define  what  it  is  that  constitutes  a 
talent  for  governing  human  affairs  with  wisdom,  I  would  say  that 
when  our  country  is  surrounded  with  difficulties,  and  a  crisis  is 
presented  in  her  affairs,  from  which  she  should  be  speedily  extricated, 


Nullification  Suspended  285 

Virginia  would  go  with  him,  he  believed,  in  re 
sponse  to  the  voice  of  her  yeomanry,  even  though 
the  legislature  and  governor  opposed  him. 

the  man  is  best  qualified  to  rule  over  her  destinies — not,  who  can 
write,  after  months  of  deliberation,  the  most  philosophical  exposition 
of  the  causes  of  her  embarrassment — not  who  can  declaim  most 
eloquently  upon  her  distress — but  who  has  the  judgment  to  decide 
with  promptitude  what  is  the  remedy  that  will  save  the  republic,  and 
energy  enough  to  apply  that  remedy  successfully  whatever  obstacles 
may  be  interposed  by  foreign  force  or  domestic  treason.  Such  is  the 
man  I  should  designate  as  qualified  to  fill  the  highest  executive  office 
of  the  republic.  And  such  a  man  precisely  is  Andrew  Jackson" 
(Journal,  March  2, 1833).  This  Union  editor  now  printed  this  former 
characterization  of  the  President  by  one  of  his  present  bitter  oppo 
nents,  and  remarked  that  the  author  had  spoken  more  truly  and 
pertinently  than  he  had  known. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  COMPROMISE  TARIFF  AND  THE  FORCE 
BILL  (1833) 

/     In  the  meantime  Congress  was  again  distraught  1 
'  by  the  tariff  controversy.     Verplanck's  tariff  bill  ' 
was  discussed  for  some  time.     At  one  point  of  the  , 
discussion,  on  January  23,  it  was  reported  that  a 
tariff  bill  would  have  passed  the  House  had  it  not  i 
been  for  a  "very  insulting  and  irritating  speech" 
by  Richard  H.  Wilde,  of  Georgia,  which  greatly 
angered  the  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  Ohio 
delegates;  there  was  great  excitement  and  appar- 
ently  no  hope  then  that  the  bill  would  pass  during 
that  session.  Sit  was  believed^  the  President  said, 
that  this  speech  was  made  at  the  instigation  of  the 
Nullifiers,  who  wished  no  adjustment.     The  Presi 
dent  predicted  that  the  whole  country,  including 
even  the  South,  would  be  united  against  the  Nulli 
fiers  when  it  was  discovered  that  their  object  was 
"  no  thing  but  disunion."1 

1  Poinsett  Papers:  Jackson  to  Poinsett,  January  24,  1833;   Van 
Buren  Papers:  Jackson  to  Van  Buren,  January  25. 

286 


The  Compromise  Tar  if  and  the  Force  Bill     287 

The  Verplanck  bill,  which  embodied  too  rapid 
'  a  reduction  for  the  manufacturers,  was  finally 
superseded  by  the  Clay  Compromise  bill;  this 
measure  was  more  acceptable  to  the  North  and 
yet  conceded  enough  to  pacify  the  Nullifiers. 
This  provided  for  a  slow  reduction  of  the  duties  for 
a  period  of  ten  years,  when  they  were  to  reach  in 
general  a  20  per  cent  level.  The  Wilkins  force  bill, 
\  before  Congress  at  the  same  time,  of  course  re 
ceived  more  denunciation  from  the  Nullifiers  than 
the  Clay  bill  received  praise.  Though  they  often 
declared  that  should  Congress  pass  the  bill,  which 
might  well  be  entitled  "a  bill  to  dissolve  the 
Union/'  South  Carolina  would  surely  secede, 
Congress  did  pass  it,  together  with  the  com- 
rjromise  tariff.1 

\  ^s^  matters  neafed  a  crisis  in  Congress,  the 
president  of  the  South ^Carolina .jcpnvention,  ex- 
Governor  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  summoned  it  to 
convene  again  on  March  n  at  Columbia,  to  con 
sider  the  Virginia  mediation  offered  through 
Benjamin  W.  Leigh,  and  such  measures  as  Con 
gress  might  then  have  adopted.  The  call  was 

1  Mercury,  January  28,  February  27,  March  5,  1833;  Journal, 
March  9;  Patriot,  January  28,  February  20;  Mountaineer,  February 
1 6,  March  2,  9;  Courier,  March  5. 


288    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

issued  about  the  middle  of  February,  before  the 
passage  of  the  congressional  measures.  The 
Union  press  then  took  occasion  to  point  out  what 
they  considered  the  true  status  of  this  convention. 
The  Courier  remarked: 

We  have  called  it  an  anomalous  body  because  in  its 
present  shape  and  with  its  present  pretensions  it  is  wholly 
without  example  in  the  free  and  republican  states  of 
America.  It  has  been  called  into  existence  without  any 
definite  purpose  or  object,  is  wholly  irresponsible,  and, 
elevating  itself  above  the  constitution  and  the  laws, 
aspires  to  boundless  and  illimitable  power.  It  is,  in 
fact,  in  itself  a  despotism,  or  the  machinery  of  a  despotism, 
which,  in  the  name  of  the  people,  exercises  authority  in 
consistent  with  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people — 
a  despotism  rendered  doubly  peculiar  and  unjustifiable  by 
the  fact  that  it  has  reared  itself  in  the  midst  of  free  insti 
tutions  and  is  upheld  by  those  who  profess  to  cherish 
liberty  more  dearly  than  life.  It  exhibits,  in  the  emphatic 
language  of  Mr.  Dallas,  the  extraordinary  spectacle 
of  a  standing  revolutionary  convention  untrammelled  in 
a  republican  country.1 

As  the  time  approached  when  the  convention 
would  meet,  it  appeared  that  the  tariff  adjustment 
would  be  accepted,  but  that  the  "bloody  "  Wilkins 
bill  would  give  further  trouble,  and  that  the  test 

1  Courier,  February  19,  1833. 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill    289 

oath  would  be  a  means  of  keeping  up  bitter  party 
hostility  in  South  Carolina.1  / ' 

The  convention  met  according  to  the  call  on 
March  n,2  and  President  James  Hamilton,  Jr., 
resigned  in  favor  of  Governor  Robert  Y.  Hayne. 
A  select  committee  of  twenty-one  was  at  once 
appointed  to  prepare  the  work  of  the  convention. 
This  committee  presented  on  March  13  a  report 
on^the  new  tariff  bill,  together  with  an  ordinance 
rescinding  the  ordinance  of  November  24,  1832; 
the  report  and  ordinance  were  adopted  March  15, 
virtually  as  at  first  reported,  by  a  vote  of  153 
to  4.  Three  days  later  another  ordinance  was 
adopted  which  nullified  the  force  bill  and  made 
further  provision  for  the  test  oath. 

As  to  the  new  tariff  act,  the  convention  declared 
that  the  reduction  provided  for  by  the  bill  was 
neither  in  its  amount,  nor  in  the  time  when  it  was 
to  go  into  effect,  such  as  the  South  had  a  right  to 
require;  yet  such  a  step  had  been  taken  toward 
the  true  principles  on  which  the  duties  on  imports 
ought  to  be  adjusted  that  the  people  of  South 

1  Mercury,  March  9,  1833. 

2  Perry  Collection,  Vol.  IX;  Journal  of  the  South  Carolina  Con 
vention,  March,  1833,  with  reports  of  the  committees,  resolutions 
proposed,  and  digest  of  the  debates  and  speeches  by  various  members. 


2  go  Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Carolina  were  willing  to  repeal  their  ordinance. 
Among  the  provisions  of  the  new  bill  which  recom 
mended  it  to  their  acceptance  were  the  establish 
ment  of  a  system  of  ad  valorem  duties,  the  entire 
abandonment  of  specific  duties  and  minima,  and 
reductions  to  an  ultimate  20  per  cent  level.  These 
were  ameliorations  of  the  system  to  the  benefits  of 
which  they  could  not  be  insensible.  But  great 
as  must  be  the  advantages  of  these  reductions, 
they  were  small  in  comparison  with  the  distinct 
recognition  in  the  new  bill  of  two  great  principles 
which  were  deemed  of  inestimable  value :  namely , 
that  the  duties  should  eventually  be  brought  down 
to  the  revenue  standard,  even  if  it  should  be  found 
necessary  to  reduce  the  duties  on  the  protected 
articles  below  20  per  cent,  and  that  no  more  money 
should  be  raised  than  was  necessary  for  an 
economical  administration  of  the  government. 

The  preamble  to  the  ordinance  which  rescinded 
the  ordinance  of  nullification  had  several  features 
more  moderate  in  tone  than  several  of  the  mem 
bers  of  the  convention  approved.  Some  there 
were  who  opposed  stating  any  reasons  at  all;  some 
opposed  as  hypocrisy  the  statement  that  "  ardently 
attached  to  the  Union  of  the  states"  the  people 
of  South  Carolina  were  still  more  devoted  to  the 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill    291 

"rights  of  the  states,  without  which  the  Union 
itself  would  cease  to  be  a  blessing  ....,"  be 
cause  South  Carolina  was  by  no  means  "ardently 
attached  to  the  Union";  some  called  the  tariff  bill 
a  great  triumph:  while  others  objected  to  any 
show  of  rejoicing  over  it  because  little  had  been 
gained,  since  the  real  trouble  was  that  the  govern 
ment  would  continue  to  be  of  a  despotic  nature 
until  limited  to  those  interests  common  to  the 
whole  confederacy,  and  because  until  then  there 
would  be  neither  liberty  nor  security  for  the  South; 
and  while  some  wanted  credit  given  to  Virginia 
and  no  mention  made  of  Clay's  bill  in  the  reasons 
given  for  the  state  action,  others  wanted  all  credit 
given  to  the  bill  and  no  mention  made  of  the 
mediation  of  Virginia.  In  many  of  the  speeches 
there  was  much  boasting  of  the  efficacy  of  nulli 
fication;1  yet  the  people  were  warned  to  keep  up 
their  zeal,  courage,  vigilance,  and  military  prep 
arations;  it  was  urged  that  the  state  should  be 
kept  in  a  firm  attitude  of  defense  against  the 
people  of  the  North,  for  there  was  more  need  of 
such  defense  than  against  a  foreign  enemy. 

1  "With  but  our  one-gun-battery  of  nullification  we  have  driven 
the  enemy  from  his  moorings,  compelled  him  to  slip  his  cable  and  put 
to  sea" — a  prodigious  work  "for  this  little  state,"  said  Robert  J. 
Turnbull,  of  Charleston. 


292    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

In  answer  to  the  mediation  of  Virginia,  a  report 
was  adopted  which  reviewed  the  whole  situation 
and  justified  South  Carolina's  adherence  to  the 
Virginia  resolutions  of  1798.  Great  care  was 
taken  not  to  offend  Virginia,  and  a  keen  apprecia 
tion  of  the  Virginia  motives  in  mediation  was 
expressed. 

As  to  the  force  bill,  the  convention  declared  that 
the  principles  which  the  act  sought  to  establish 
were  calculated  to  "  destroy  our  constitutional 
frame  of  government,  to  subvert  the  public 
liberty,  and  to  bring  about  the  utter  ruin  and  de 
basement  of  the  southern  states  of  this  con 
federacy."  The  general  purpose  of  the  whole 
act,  though  not  expressed  in  the  terms  of  it,  was 
perfectly  well  known  to  have  been  to  counteract 
and  render  ineffective  an  ordinance  of  South 
Carolina  adopted  in  her  sovereign  capacity  for 
the  protection  of  her  reserved  rights.  Believ 
ing  in  the  constitutionality  of  these  reserved 
rights  of  the  state,  the  convention  declared 
the  force  bill  unconstitutional  on  nine  distinct 
counts. 

The  feature  of  the  work  of  the  convention  which 
was  destined  to  furnish  occasion  for  discord  during 
the  next  two  years  was  its  declaration : 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill    293 

That  the  allegiance  of  the  citizens  of  this  state,  while 
they  continue  such,  is  due  to  the  said  state;  and  that 
obedience  only,  and  not  allegiance,  is  due  by  them  to  any 
other  power  or  authority,  to  whom  a  control  over  them 
has  been  or  may  be  delegated  by  the  state;  and  the  general 
assembly  of  the  said  state  is  hereby  empowered,  from 
time  to  time,  when  they  may  deem  it  proper,  to  provide 
for  the  administration  to  the  citizens  and  officers  of  the 
state,  or  such  of  the  said  officers  as  they  may  think  fit, 
of  suitable  oaths  or  affirmations,  binding  them  to  the 
observance  of  such  allegiance,  and  abjuring  all  other 
allegiance,  and  also  to  define  what  shall  amount  to  a  viola 
tion  of  their  allegiance,  and  to  provide  the  proper  punish 
ment  for  such  violation. 

This  passed  by  a  vote  of  132  to  19.  The  few 
Union  members  of  the  convention  spoke  bravely 
against  the  test  oath,  but  in  vain;  the  other 
party  was  determined  to  pass  this  measure  of 
discipline  against  them,  and  their  protests  only 
called  forth  severe  denunciations  of  the  whole 
policy  of  the  Union  party,  which,  it  was  said,  had 
made  thorough  preparations  to  defeat  the  efforts 
of  the  state. 

The  Union  party  had  planned  to  have  a  party 
convention  at  Columbia  at  the  same  time  that 
the  state  convention  met.  It  was  expected  by 
Jackson  that  in  case  the  state  convention  should 


2  94    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

determine  on  secession,  the  Union  party  would 
declare  its  determination  to  support  the  United 
States  to  the  last  extremity.1  Thus  while  the 
Unionists  had  previously  stood  merely  against 
nullification,  declaring  that  if  the  state  should 
secede  they  would  go  with  her,  they  now  gave 
grounds  for  an  expectation  that  they  would  oppose 
the  state  if  secession  developed  out  of  nullification. 
They  would  have  fought  with  the  state  had  she 
openly  voted  for  secession  in  the  preceding  fall, 
but  they  would  not  support  secession  now  if  it 
was  voted  by  the  state  convention  elected  to  adopt 
nullification  as  a  "peaceable"  measure.  Some 
of  them  said,  in  fact,  that  the  state  had  not  de 
clared  for  secession  officially,  and  that  if  it  were 
adopted  it  would  be  the  result  of  deception  on  the 
part  of  the  nullification  leaders. 

But  because  the  time  appointed  for  the  meeting 
of  the  convention  fell  at  a  season  when  the  "sub 
stantial  yeomanry"  of  the  state,  of  whom  the 
Union  men  claimed  to  have  the  majority,  were 
starting  their  crops,  and  because  the  belief  was 
general  that  nullification  was  "in  its  last  agonies" 
by  reason  of  the  tariff  adjustment,  and  because 
a  party  convention  was  not  essential  to  the  cause 

1  Poinsett  Papers:  Jackson  to  Poinsett,  March  6,  1833. 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill     295 

of  the  Union  and  therefore  would  not  be  well 
attended,  the  Union  central  committee,  composed 
of  Joel  R.  Poinsett,  James  L.  Petigru,  Daniel  E. 
Huger,  Richard  I.  Manning,  and  Robert  Cunning 
ham,  postponed  the  Union  convention  indefinitely, 
to  be  called  in  case  of  "new  acts  of  tyranny  by 
the  dominant  party."1  The  fact,  however,  that 
this  Union  convention  had  been  contemplated 
for  the  purpose  of  opposing  the  Nullifiers  in  case 
they  should  determine  in  the  state  convention  to 
push  their  remedy  farther,  had  much  to  do  with 
the  bitter  feeling  evinced  in  the  state  convention 
against  the  Union  party. 

M  The  repeal  of  the  ordinance  of  nullification 
virtually  settled  the  question  of  South  Carolina's 
federal  relations.)  \There  were  some  grumblings 
against  the  tariff  during  the  rest  of  the  year,  but 
in  general  the  main  interest  of  politics  centered 
in  The~ibcal  quarrel  tetween  the  two  parties 
over  The"  test  oath.  This  controversy  appeared 
even  before  the  convention  met  and  was  soon 
recognized  as  hinging  upon  a  difference  of  in 
terpretation  as  to  where  paramount  allegiance 
was  due. 

1  Poinsett  Papers:    Chapman  Levy  to  Poinsett,  February  25, 
1833.    Patriot,  March  n,  1833. 


296    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Before  the  convention  met,  the  Mercury  recom 
mended  a  provision  for  an  oath  of  paramount 
allegiance  to  the  state  to  be  taken  by  all  state 
officers  and,  as  part  of  the  condition  of  citizenship, 
by  all  persons  thereafter  to  be  naturalized.  The 
Nulliners  maintained  that  such  an  oath  was  not 
at  all  different  from  the  oaths  of  office  required 
by  several  other  states.  For  example,  those  of 
Vermont  and  Massachusetts,  because  they  con 
tained  no  reservation  of  paramount  allegiance  to 
the  United  States  in  so  many  words,  were  said 
to  require  the  positive  and  direct  allegiance  of 
the  officer,  in  the  event  of  conflict  with  federal 
laws,  to  the  laws  of  the  state.  This  the  Nulliners 
would  put  in  direct  terms  instead  of  leaving  it  to 
implication. 

The  Union  editors  at  once  attacked  this  con 
tention  with  arguments  which  they  thought  con 
clusive.  How  anyone  who  had  read  the  emphatic 
language  of  the  federal  Constitution  on  this  very 
subject  could  seriously  entertain  such  a  proposi 
tion,  they  said,  was  not  easy  to  imagine.  They 
quoted  from  the  federal  instrument:  uThis  Con 
stitution  and  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof 
shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  anything 
in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill     297 

contrary  notwithstanding."  They  argued  that 
the  oath  and  obligation  of  federal  allegiance  were 
necessarily  paramount  to  the  oath  and  obligation 
oTstate  allegiance;  that  to  make  in  the  state 
constitution  an  express  reservation  of  supremacy 
in  favor  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  would  be, 
to  say  the  least,  an  act  of  supererogation.  In  fact, 
they  declared  that  the  obligation  of  state  allegiance 
included  that  of  federal  allegiance,  for  both  the 
federal  and  the  state  constitutions  composed  the 
fundamental  law  within  the  limits  of  every  state, 
and  the  former  was  in  express  terms  vested  with 
supremacy  over  the  latter  in  case  of  a  conflict 
between  them. 

No  one  denied  the  right  of  a  state  to  require  of 
Its  citizens  an  oath  of  fidelity j , and  there  was  not 
a  Union  man  in  South  Carolina  who  would  not 
readily  swear  or  affirm,  after  the  form  of  the 
Massachusetts  oath,  "I,  A.  B.,  do  solemnly  swear, 
that  I  will  bear  true  faith  and  allegiance  to  the 
commonwealth  of  South  Carolina,  and  will  sup 
port  the  constitution  thereof,  so  help  me  God." 
If  this  state,  even  after  the  passage  of  her  ordi 
nance  of  nullification,  had  required  such  an  oath 
from  her  citizens,  the  Union  editors  saw  no  reason 
why  it  should  not  have  been  cheerfully  taken  by 


298    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

all.  I  tut  the  Nullifiers''  test  oath  did  not  conform 
to  this  model.  It  did  not  merely  require  the  citi 
zen  generally  to  pledge  his  fealty  to  the  state;  it 
commanded  him,  under  pain  of  proscription  and 
disfranchisement,  to  swear  that  he  would  enforce 
a  particular  measure  or  set  of  measures;  that  he 
would  obey  and  execute  the  nullification  edict 
and  the  laws  passed  in  pursuance  of  it,  although 
convinced  that  they  were  in  direct  collision  with 
the  federal  Constitution,  which  he  was  already 
bound  to  obey  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.p, 
The  object  of  this  device,  as  openly  avowed  by  its 
advocates,  was  to  constitute  the  ordinance  of 
nullification,  instead  of  the  federal  Constitution, 
the  paramount  law  of  the  land. )  (The  Union  men 
especially  objected  to  the  clause  requiring  jurors 
to  take  the  test  oath.1)  j 

The  Union  men  protested  also  that  such  an 
oath  of  paramount  allegiance  to  the  state  would 
set  aside,  not  only  the  ordinary  obligation  to  obey 
the  laws  of  the  United  States,  but  that  part  of 
the  state  constitution  itself  known  as  the  "declara 
tion  of  supremacy "  of  the  federal  Constitution 
and  the  oath  connected  with  it.  An  oath  of 
paramount  allegiance  to  the  state  would  be  an 

1  Courier,  March  6,  1833;  Patriot,  March  9,  n. 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill     299 

abnegation  of  all  other  allegiance  from  the  mo 
ment  it  was  taken.  It  would  be  a  contradiction 
to  subscribe  at  the  same  time  to  an  oath  of 
paramount  allegiance  to  the  state  and  an  oath 
of  paramount  allegiance  to  the  United  States. 

Itjvas  toward  the  end  of  the  session  of  the  con- 
venjion  that  the  oath  question  came  up.  The 
debate  became  bitter  and  so  personal  that  on  a 
Saturday  evening  it  was  suggested  that  adjourn 
ment  be  taken  over  Sunday,  "to  hear  prayers  and 
cool  off."1  On  the  following  Monday,  since  the 
Nullifiers  were  not  able  to  agree  among  themselves, 
the  convention  agreed  as  a  compromise  to  refer 
the  entire  question  of  oaths  to  the  legislature. 
This  satisfied  neither  the  radical  Nullifiers,  who 
wanted  the  convention  to  prescribe  the  oath  at 
\  once,  nor  the  Union  men,  who  wanted  the  whole 
/  matter  dropped  now  and  forever.  [This  grant  of 
power  by  the  convention  to  the  legislature  to 
settle  the  matter  was  decried  by  the  Union  men 
as  a  provision  to  disfranchise,  keep  out  of  office, 
and  "chain  to  the  chariot  wheels  of  a  crowd  of 
despots  who  ruled  the  madness  of  the  hour" 
nearly  half  the  citizens  of  the  state.  It  was  held 
to  be  "an  odious  and  tyrannical  usurpation," 

1  Benjamin  F.  Perry,  Reminiscences  and  Speeches. 


300    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

for  the  purpose  of  securing  all  the  offices  of  the 
state  to  the  State  Rights  party,  for  the  Unionists 
knew  that  no  Union  man  could  be  found  who 
would  "soil  his  conscience  and  sell  his  country 
for  the  paltry  consideration  held  forth  by  the 
emoluments  of  office"  when  "offered  as  the 
wages  of  iniquity — as  the  reward  of  moral 
perjury!" 

Surely  this  plan  could  not  be  executed,  for  it 
would  arouse  the  dormant  spirit  of  the  people 
and  open  their  eyes  to  the  approach  of  despotism, 
reasoned  the  Union  men.1  Buttaince  the  personnel 
of  the  legislature  would  be  the  same  at  its  next 
session  as  at  the  last,  that  body  would  be  likely 
to  take  such  action  as  the  nullification  leaders 
desired,  unless  a  formidable  popular  sentiment 
against  the  oath  could  be  worked  up  by  the  Union 
party!  ^  Accordingly,  from  March  until  the  legis 
lature  met,  the  last  week  in  November,  the  papers 
were  filled  with  arguments  pro  and  con  on  the 
advisability  of  adopting  an  oath. 

Though  the  oath  question  was  still  in  agitation, 
the  editors  of  the  state  welcomed  the  comparative 
calm  of  the  next  few  months.  For  the  past  four 
years,  and  especially  during  the  last  two,  the 

1  Gazette,  March  19,  1833. 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill    301 

papers  had  been  filled  with  little  else  than  the  all- 
absorbing  political  issue.  Day  after  day,  and 
week  after  week,  the  reader  found  the  columns  of 
the  papers  rilled  with  long  reports  of  speeches, 
debates,  and  arguments  on  political  questions. 
Although  in  these  months  some  great  contribu 
tions  to  the  literature  of  political  science  were 
made,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  readers 
of  these  papers  became  somewhat  wearied  with 
so  much  heavy  material,  and  craved  something 
in  a  lighter  vein.  At  any  rate,  the  editors  felt 
called  upon  to  apologize  for  having  given  so  much 
space  to  political  matter,  and  they  assured  their 
readers  that  in  the  future  they  would  devote  their 
columns  more  to  the  general  news  of  the  day- 
market  prices,  miscellaneous  productions  of  his 
tory,  biography,  poetry,  tales,  anecdotes,  and 
agricultural  essays  in  an  effort  to  stay  the  process 
of  exhaustion  of  the  soil  which  was  going  on.  One 
editor  added  that  murders  and  accidents  would 
have  their  due  proportion  of  attention.1 

For  a  few  months  following  the  passage  of  the 
compromise  tariff  there  continued  some  discus 
sion  as  to  the  merits  of  the  bill.  Some  of  the 
nullification  papers  claimed  a  great  victory  for 

1  Mountaineer,  April  6,  1833;  Messenger,  May  15. 


302     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

nullification,1  and  nearly  all  of  them  were  eager 
to  prove  that  the  new  tariff  was  really  a  victory 
for  the  South.  They  reviewed  recent  tariff  his 
tory  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  such  a  con 
cession  as  the  new  bill  embodied  was  much  greater 
than  could  have  been  expected  shortly  before, 
when  Congress  had  ridiculed  a  proposal  by  Hayne 
that  no  duty  on  any  article  should  exceed  100  per 
cent.  Now  they  had  a  law  demanding  the 
gradual  reduction  of  the  duty  on  every  article  to 
20  per  cent;  ad  valorem  duties  were  to  become 
general,  and  the  abominable  minimum  system 
was  to  be  abandoned;  a  number  of  articles  re 
ceived  almost  exclusively  in  return  for  the  pro 
ductions  of  the  South  were  in  a  few  months  to  be 
admitted  duty-free.  These  same  papers  pointed 
out  that  the  bill,  though  objectionable  in  some  of 
its  provisions,  was  decidedly  more  advantageous 

1  Messenger,  March  20,  1833.  An  excellent  example  is  quoted 
by  Niles'  Register,  March  23,  1833,  from  the  Columbia  Telescope  of 
March  12:  "This  little  state  ....  has  foiled  the  swaggering  giant 
of  the  Union.  30,000  Carolinians  have  not  only  awed  the  Wild 
West  into  respect,  compelled  Pennsylvania  stolidity  into  something 
like  sense,  New  York  corruption  into  something  like  decency,  Yankee 
rapacity  into  a  sort  of  image  of  honesty,  but  all  this  has  been  loftily 
and  steadily  done  in  the  face  of  17,000 — what  shall  we  call  them? 
What  epithet  is  of  a  shame  wide,  lasting,  and  deep  enough  for  the 
betrayers  of  the  liberties  of  their  own  country  ....  ?"  The 
closing  remark  was  directed  at  the  Union  men. 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill    303 

to  the  South  than  any  that  had  been  offered  for 
years,  and  that  its  passage  before  the  act  of  1832 
had  gone  into  operation  proved  beyond  doubt  that 
it  was  brought  about  by  some  unusual  cause. 
That  cause,  they  declared,  was  nullification.1 
The  tariff  and  administration  press  of  the  North, 
and  the  Union  and  administration  or  "collar" 
press  of  the  South,  however,  attacked  the  bill  in 
vigorous  terms;  some  of  the  Union  men  even 
protested  that  it  was  worse  than  the  bill  of  1832, 
and  announced  that  they  would  proceed  to  get  a 
better  one  some  day  in  their  own  way.2 

Jackson  took  a  view  of  the  entire  affair  radically 
different  from  that  of  the  South  Carolina  Nulli- 
fiers.  On  March  21,  1833,  he  wrote  as  follows: 

Nullification,  supported  by  the  corrupting  influence 
of  the  Bank,  with  the  union  of  Calhoun  and  Clay,  which 
collected  around  them  the  corrupt  and  wicked  of  all 
parties,  engaged  all  my  attention  to  counteract  their 
combinations,  and  defeat  their  wicked  projects.  I  met 
nullification  at  its  threshold.  My  proclamation  was  well 
timed;  it  opened  the  eyes  of  the  people  to  the  wicked 
designs  of  the  Nullifiers,  whose  actings  ( ?)  had  been  carried 
on  in  silence,  whilst  its  ostensible  object,  which  deluded 

1  Messenger,  March  20,  27,  June  26,  1833.  Hammond  Papers: 
Hammond  to  M.  C.  M.  Hammond,  March  27. 

3  Journal,  July  20,  1833;  Messenger,  April  17,  May  8. 


304    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

the  people,  was  a  peaceable  and  constitutional  modifica 
tion  of  the  tariff.  The  tariff  was  made  the  ostensible 
object,  when  a  separation  of  the  union  by  the  Potomac,  and 
a  southern  confederacy,  was  the  true  one.  The  proclama 
tion  drew  the  attention  of  the  people  to  the  subject,  and 
from  Maine  to  Louisiana,  the  united  voice  of  the  people 
repudiated  the  absurd  and  wicked  doctrine  of  nullification 
and  secession,  and  the  advices  of  today  inform  us  that 
South  Carolina  has  repealed  her  ordinance  and  all  the 
laws  based  upon  it.  Thus  dies  nullification  and  the 
doctrine  of  secession,  never  more  to  be  heard  of,  only  in 
holding  up  to  scorn  and  indignation  its  projectors  and 
abettors,  and  handing  them  down  to  posterity  as  traitors 
to  the  best  of  governments.1 

The  Wilkins  bill  received  far  more  attention 
.than  did  the  tariff  law./  The  nullification  leaders 
pointed  out  that  the  question  had  assumed  a 
different  form;  that  the  issue  now  was  between 
a  consolidated  government,  exercising  the  powers 
claimed  under  the  bloody  bill,  trampling  down 
the  authorities  and  rights  of  the  states,  and  a 
confederacy  of  sovereignties.  They  predicted 
that  the  new  issue  would  unite  the  South,  and  that 
the  South  united  would  triumph  or  be  forced  to 
submit  to  an  irresponsible  despotism.2  John  C. 
C'alhoun  believed  that  a  consolidated  government 

1  Jackson  Papers:  Jackson  to  ?,  March  21,  1833. 

2  Messenger,  March  20,  1833. 


The  Compromise  Tar  if  and  the  Force  Bill     305 

had  indeed  been  established  by  law  under  the 
force  act,  and  that  unless  there  should  be  a  com 
plete  reaction  which  would  repeal  that  act  and 
completely  reform  the  government,  the  South 
must  expect  and  prepare  to  sink  under  corruption 
and  despotism.  His  hope  of  avoiding  this  catas 
trophe  was  placed  in  the  agency  of  state  rights 
to  be  used  by  the  southern  states  as  South  Caro 
lina  had  employed  them  against  the  tariff.1  To 
the  State  Rights  party  it  seemed  that  the  force 
act  was  destined  to  be  the  dividing  line  between 
the  Republicans  and  the  Federalists,  as  were  the 
Alien  and  Sedition  laws  in  former  days.  The 
present  federalism,  they  believed,  had  assumed  a 
bolder  tone  than  that  of  an  earlier  time,  for  it  had 
come  out  in  open  advocacy  of  a  government  with 
out  limitation  of  powers  and  even  dared  to  place 
the  purse  and  the  sword  of  the  nation  in  the  hands 
of  a  single  individual,  to  be  used  at  his  discretion.2 
|  Some  of  the  President's  closest  political  sym- 
i  pathizers  believed  that  he  had  been  too  hasty  in 
his  message  asking  for  the  force  bill;]/  that  his 
message  and  the. bill  should  not  have  appeared 

1  Calhoun  Correspondence:  Calhoun  to  Christopher  Van  Deven- 
ter,  March  24,  1833;   Calhoun  to  Thomas  Holland  and  Committee, 
July  2. 

2  Messenger,  April  3,  10,  May  i,  1833. 


306    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

until  the  close  of  the  session  and  it  was  certain 
that  South  Carolina  had  put  her  ordinance  into 
execution.  As  it  was,  the  administration  was 
embarrassed  by  having  its  leading  measure  sup 
ported  by  its  bitterest  enemies — ultra-federalists 
and  ultra-tariffites — who  would  be  pleased  to  see 
the  North  and  the  South  arrayed  against  each 
other.  If  South  Carolina  yielded  to  the  Virginia 
intercession,  there  was  no  need  for  the  enforcing 
act,  and  if  she  should  not  yield,  it  could  have  come 
forward  under  most  favorable  circumstances.1 

After  the  convention  had  ended  the  nullifica 
tion  episode  as  far  as  the  tariff  was  concerned,  the 
i  INullifiers  still  continued  their  military  organiza- 
[  tion.]  j  On  March  26  general  orders  were  issued 
from  the  headquarters  of  the  commander-in-chief 
at  Charleston,2  declaring  that  in  view  of  the  force 
bill,   though   the   convention   had   repealed   the 
ordinance  of  nullification  and  the  acts  of  the  legis 
lature  passed  in  pursuance  thereof,  it  had  expressly 
excepted  the  act  "  further  to  alter  and  amend  the 

1  Van  Buren  Papers:    Cambreleng  to  Van  Buren,  February  5, 
1833;    T.  H.  Benton  to  Van  Buren,  February  16;    Van  Buren  to 
Jackson,  February  20. 

2  Hammond  Papers:    General  orders,   signed  by  J.   B.   Earle, 
adjutant-   and  inspector-general.     This   copy   was  sent   to  J.   H. 
Hammond  and  is  dated  March  26,  1833. 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the,  Force  Bill    307 

militia  laws  of  the  state/'  under  which  the  nearly 
20,000  volunteers  had  been  organized  and  their 
services  accepted.  The  volunteers  would,  there 
fore,  retain  their  existing  organization  at  least 
until  the  next  session  of  the  legislature.  The 
old  militia  organization  was  also  to  continue  as 
before. 

It  was  believed  by  some  of  the  State  Rights 
men  that  although  the  action  of  the  convention 
which  declared  the  allegiance  of  every  Carolinian 
due  to  the  state  and  obedience  merely  as  the  due 
of  the  constitutional  laws  of  the  general  govern 
ment  would  probably  not  give  rise  to  any  disturb 
ance,  yet  Jackson  was  "such  a  hot  headed  old  fool 
and  scoundrel"  that  there  was  no  telling  what  he 
might  do .  "At  all  events , ' '  said  one  of  the  leaders , 
"we  continue  our  military  preparations  and  shall 
keep  them  up  until  the  force  bill  is  repealed  and 
probably  always.  { fit  has  come  to  this  in  our 
opinion,  that  we  of  the  South  are  to  have  no  more 
freedom  than  we  can  maintain  at  the  point  of  the 
sword  and  we  are  determined  to  be  always  pre 
pared  for  that  issue  whenever  it  is  necessary  to 

make  it.'A  \ 
VI 

1  Hammond  Papers:  Hammond  to  M.  C".  M.  Hammond,  March 
27,  1833- 


308    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

No  means  was  neglected  which  might  be  used 
;  jto  keep  up  the  interest  of  the  State  Rights  men  in 
their  military  organization.  |j  For  this  purpose,  and 
to  offset  the  influence  of  a  dinner  given  by  the 
Union  men  for  the  officers  of  the  federal  govern 
ment  sent  to  Charleston  to  be  ready  for  action, 
the  Nullifiers  gave  a  " Grand  Volunteer  Ball"  on 
March  27.  The  decorations  were  very  elaborate; 
the  palmetto  flag  was  everywhere  to  be  seen; 
transparencies  told  in  terse  mottoes  the  virtues 
of  nullification;  the  names  of  the  party  heroes 
were  in  prominence;  but  nowhere  did  the  Stars 
and  Stripes  appear,  because  it  was  identified  with 
the  bill  of  blood.1 

Five  days  later,  on  April  i,  another  military 
celebration  was  held  in  Charleston.  This  was  of 
a  different  character  and  became  the  model  for 
a  type  of  festivity  which  was  encouraged  the  state 
over  in  an  effort  to  keep  the  volunteers  organized. 
The  governor  reviewed  the  local  troops  and  pre 
sented  them  with  a  standard  of  the  "  nation  of 
South  Carolina,"  as  the  opponents  derisively 
called  it.  The  troops  were  told  again  of  the 
wonders  they  had  wrought,  and  were  urged  to 
maintain  their  organization,  that  they  might  be 

1  Mercury,  March  27,  1833;  Niks'  Register,  April  13,  20. 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill    309 

ready  for  future  deeds  as  great.  Thereafter  the 
governor  reviewed  and  presented  with  a  standard 
"in  behalf  of  the  state77  every  volunteer  regiment 
which  would  of  its  own  accord  turn  out  to  receive 
the  honor.  |  In  some  districts  the  plan  to  keep  up 
interest  worked  well,  and  much  enthusiasm  was 
displayed,  but  in  others  the  troops  lost  spirit  and 
disbanded  in  spite  of  efforts  to  keep  them  together.1 
The  Nullifiers  also  exploited  other  occasions 
whicn  afforded  opportunity  for  a  display  of  party 
spirit.  Robert  J.  Turnbull,  known  as  "Brutus," 
one  of  the  most  active  leaders  of  the  party,  died  in 
the  summer.  The  nullification  papers  took  occa 
sion  in  praising  his  work  to  boast  of  their  doctrines; 
immediately  a  fund  was  started  for  a  monument, 
and  later  in  the  year  the  cornerstone  was  laid  with 
much  ceremony.  John  C.  Calhoun  and  Robert 
Y.  Hayne  both  spoke  earnestly  for  the  cause.2 

1  N lies'  Register,  April  20,  27,  September  7,  October  26,  1833; 
Mercury,  May  4.  Hammond  Papers:  Hayne  to  Hammond,  April  4, 
and  letters  of  April,  May,  and  June  of  1833.  As  an  indication  of  the 
way  in  which  some  of  the  men  of  the  interior  had  ceased  active  work 
in  behalf  of  the  State  Rights  cause,  a  letter  by  Hammond  to  I.  W. 
Hayne,  dated  December  17,  1833,  is  eloquent.  He  said,  in  part: 
"I  have  purchased  two  fiddles  ....  and  divide  my  leisure  time 
between  fiddling  and  reading  Grecian  History."  A  year  previously 
he  had  no  leisure  time,  nor  time  even  for  his  plantation;  he  was 
devoting  it  all  to  the  military  organization  of  the  party. 

3  Mercury,  June  15,  November  19,  25,  1833. 


310    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

!  The  Fourth  of  July  furnished  the  Nullifiers  ^ 
,  another  opportunity  to  parade  every  uniform/  ' 
Their   toasts   were   steeped   in   the   nullification 
doctrines,  and  many  were  very  ungenerous  toward 
their  enemies,  Jackson  and  the  Union  party.1 

1  Mercury,  July  6,  1833;  Messenger,  July  10,  24;  Niles'  Register, 
August  31.  The  following  are  examples  of  the  more  ungenerous 
toasts: 

"Nullification:  a  shield  against  which  the  poisoned  darts  of 
aspiring  demagogues  and  the  puny  efforts  of  disappointed  ambition 
have  struck  in  vain.  It  has  preserved  the  Union  from  dissolution, 
the  Constitution  from  infraction,  and  our  government  from  con 
solidation." 

"Andrew  Jackson:  a  political  lunatic,  exempt  from  responsibility 
for  his  acts,  and  dependent  for  their  propriety  or  folly  entirely  upon 
the  sanity  of  his  keepers." 

"Drayton,  Blair,  Mitchell,  and  all  other  southern  advocates  of 
the  tariff  and  bloody  bill:  may  they  ever  lie  hard,  have  bad  dreams, 
and  die  of  lingering  diseases  and  leave  few  friends  to  weep  for  them 
when  dead." 

One  editor,  in  looking  over  the  toasts  given  by  the  "plain  farmers 
and  working  men"  of  the  state,  was  astonished  at  the  knowledge  of 
the  character  of  our  institutions  and  of  the  political  history  of  the 
times  displayed  by  those  whose  opportunities  of  education  were 
known  to  have  been  extremely  limited.  Though  couched  in 
some  instances  in  homely  language,  they  nevertheless  showed  that 
all  had  been  awakened  during  the  recent  struggle  to  an  investiga 
tion  of  the  affairs  of  the  nation  and  of  the  principles  on  which 
the  government  was  founded.  The  editor  averred  that  if  no 
other  good  had  grown  out  of  the  contest,  this  general  diffusion 
of  intelligence,  which  he  believed  had  placed  South  Carolina 
people  as  a  mass  ahead  of  any  others  in  the  United  States  for 
political  knowledge,  should  be  set  down  as  great  gain  (Messenger, 
July  10). 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill    311 

In  their  efforts  to  keep  the  Nullifiers  organized 
and  zealous,  Robert  Y.  Hayne,  George  McDuffie, 
William  Harper,  and  other  leaders  had  used  such 
expressions  as  these:  "We  must  regard  ourselves 
as  at  the  beginning,  not  the  end,  of  a  contest.  In 
less  than  another  year  we  may  be  called  to  arms. 
Such  is  the  present  aspect  of  things  that  we  cannot 
safely  intermit  our  military  preparations";  "The 
battle  is  but  begun";  "If,  then,  I  am  disposed  to 
accept  this  compromise,  it  is  with  a  distinct  annun 
ciation  to  our  people  that  their  zeal,  their  courage, 
their  vigilance  must  not  be  abated;  nor  must 
they,  for  a  single  instant,  intermit  their  military 
preparations!"1  The  Union  editors  pointed  out 
that  such  statements  meant  either  that  the 
leading  Nullifiers  were  to  keep  up  the  excite 
ment  and  "the  fudge  and  flummery"  of  military 
display  for  petty  party  reasons  and  to  keep 
themselves  prominent,  or  that  they  contem 
plated  secession  at  a  later  date.  The  entire  pro 
gram  of  the  Nullification  party  seemed  to  the 
Union  men  to  be  one  displaying  the  most  insolent 
tyranny — "outrageous,  bare-faced,  premeditated 
and  insupportable  tyranny"  of  a  "gang  of 

1  Mountaineer,  April  20,  August  24,  1833;    Journal,  March  23, 
June  8;  Gazette,  April  i. 


312     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

desperadoes."  It  was  a  "relapse  into  down  right 
barbarism/'1 

v  I  Union  speakers  defended  the  force  bill  and  be 
littled  the  compromise  tariff.2  )/  The  party  papers 
noticed  every  apparent  lagging  of  spirit  among  the 
ranks  of  the  opposition.3  Calhoun's  first  speech 
on  the  force  bill  was  picked  to  pieces  by  an  editor 
who,  after  only  a  partial  examination,  pointed  out 
twelve  errors  as  to  history  and  matters  of  fact.4 
The  debates  of  Calhoun  and  Webster,  in  the  Senate 
in  February  of  1833,  on  the  nature  of  the  govern 
ment  were  printed;  Webster  was  held  to  have 
given  the  correct  view,  while  that  of  Calhoun  was 
ridiculed  as  being  full  of  "strange  fallacies," 
"meretricious  charms  of  error,"  "delusions  of 
sophistry,"  and  in  many  places  almost  "childishly 
fallacious  and  contradictory."5  The  anomalous 
position  of  the  late  state  convention  was  much 
ridiculed  and  the  question  was  ironically  asked 
whether  the  state  was  still  "on  her  sovereignty."6 

1  Writings  of  Hugh  S.  Legare:  letter  by  Legare  to  I.  E.  Holmes, 
April  8,  1833,  p.  207. 

2  Journal,  March  16,  1833;  Patriot,  July  5,  29. 

s  Messenger,  June  5,  1833;  Mountaineer,  August  10. 

4  Courier,  May  28,  1833. 

5  Patriot,  April  4,  1833;  Courier,  April  5. 

6  Courier,  April  19,  July  19,  1833;  Mountaineer,  April  20. 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill    313 

The  protean  character  of  nullification  was  shown, 
and  the  misuse  by  the  State  Rights  party  of  the 
phrase  "sovereignty  is  indivisible"  was  pointed 
out.1 

When  the  Edgefield  Carolinian,  a  Columbia 
paper,  and  the  Mercury  all  claimed  that  the  ad 
vance  in  cotton,  noticed  in  August,  was  attrib 
utable  to  nullification,  the  Patriot  replied  that 
such  a  statement  might  be  expected  from  "an 
ignorant  up-country  editor/'2  unacquainted  with 
the  matters  of  trade,  but  was  inexcusable  in 
the  Mercury.  "Nullification,"  it  was  remarked, 
"must  indeed  have  performed  wonders,  if  it  has 
given  increased  activity  to  the  cotton  mills  of 
Europe  and  interfered  with  certain  physical  laws 
of  our  globe  so  as  to  have  checked  the  growth  of 
cotton."  The  Nullifiers  were  asked  what  they 
would  have  said  had  the  high  price  of  cotton  in 
1825  been  attributed  to  the  passage  of  the  tariff 

1  Courier,  November  23,  June  15,  1833.     Indivisible  sovereignty, 
the  Union  men  argued,  applied  only  to  the  prince  and  not  to  the 
people.     South    Carolina,    they   said,   had    actually    divided    hers 
(the  delegation  of  it  had  been  divided,  was  probably  what  was 
meant),  yielding  a  portion  of  it  to  the  "great  community  of  the 
Union." 

2  These  editors  were  by  no  means  all  ignorant.     The  editorial 
columns  of  some  of  the  up-country  papers  were  far  more  able  than 
those  of  some  of  the  Charleston  papers. 


314    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

law  of  1824.     One  statement  was  just  as  absurd 
as  the  other,  to  the  Union  men.1 
|j      When  it  came  time  for  the  Charleston  city  elec- 
J.'tions  in  September,  the  Union  men  refused  to 
'j  nominate  a  ticket,  because,  they  said,  they  wished 
/  no  longer  to  continue  the  excitement  and  antago 
nism.    Just   before    the    election,    however,    an 
independent  ticket  appeared,  which  made  a  fair 
I   showing,  but  was  not  able  to  defeat  any  part  of 
the  State  Rights  ticket. f  The  State  Rights  men 
accused  the  Union  men  of  thus  trying,  under  a 
disguise,  to  get  into  control.     The  Union  party, 
as  such,  denied  the  charge,  and  said  that  what  few 
Union  men  voted  the  Independent  ticket,  which 
was  promoted  by  seceders  from  the  Nullification 
party,  did  so  as  individuals  and  without  party 
concert.3 

/  During  this  year  there  came  a  congressional 
/election,  delayed  from  the  year  before.  In  the 
I  last  Congress  the  Union  men  had  had  three  of  the 
•'  nine  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
As  a  result  of  the  election  in  September  of  1833 
^  they  had  only  one,  James  Blair. '  In  a  few  dis- 

1  Patriot,  August  21,  1833;  Niles'  Register,  September  7. 
3  Mercury,  August  23,  30,  September  4,  1833;   Courier,  Septem 
ber  4. 


The  Compromise  Tariff  and  the  Force  Bill     315 

tricts,  however,  the  Union  party  made  a  better 
showing  than  ever  before.  In  Charleston  the 
party  decided  not  to  run  a  candidate,  knowing  that 
it  would  be  defeated  and  thinking  that  the  people 
had  been  long  enough  harassed  by  political  strife. 
In  December  the  Nullifiers  of  Charleston  easily 
elected  a  man  to  take  the  place  in  the  state  legisla 
ture  left  vacant  by  the  election  of  Henry  L. 
Pinckney  to  Congress.1 

1  Mercury,  May  10,  September  5,  13,  December  6,  12,  1833; 
Mountaineer,  August  31,  September  7;  Messenger,  September  4,  18. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  TEST  OATH  (1833-35) 

As  the  time  approached  for  the  legislative 
session  the  papers  began  to  discuss  the  oath  ques 
tion  more  fully.  The  nullification  papers  declared 
that  the  oath  would  be  passed  by  the  legislature. 
The  Union  papers  were  filled  with  warnings! 
against  such  action.  They  pleaded  with  their 
opponents  to  be  satisfied  with  the  victory  they 
claimed  to  have  won  and  to  give  the  people  a 
respite  from  the  most  angry  and  distracting  party 
contest  ever  witnessed  in  the  state.  The  Nulli- 
fiers  were  warned  that  the  Union  men  would  no 
longer  tamely  submit  to  the  tyranny  of  being 
excluded  from  office  because  they  would  not  swear 
to  the  truth  of  nullification.  (The  Union  men 
continually  endeavored  to  make  it  clear  that  they 
did  not  object  to  a  mere  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
state,  but  only  to  an  oath  of  allegiance  clothed 
in  language  which  amounted  to  a  denial  of  their 
federal  obligations.V  Such  an  act,  they  asserted, 
would  rekindle  the  flames  of  party  discord  and 
again  involve  the  state  in  complete  disorder,  for 


The  Test  Oath  317 

those  districts  in  which  the  Union  party  was  still  in 
the  ascendancy  would  "choose  political  disorgan- 
izatioh  sooner  than  yield  to  such  an  arbitrary 
measure."1 

There  were  some  in  the  State  Rights  party 
who,  up  to  a  very  late  date,  doubted  the  wisdom 
of  the  passage  of  an  oath  unless  some  emergency 
made  it  necessary  to  the  safety  of  the  state. 
They  would  not  advocate  it  positively,  but  would 
let  the  legislature  decide  on  its  expediency.  Some 
of  this  class  were  converted  just  before  the  legis 
lature  met,  probably  by  the  tone  of  the  presses, 
r  into  active  advocates  of  an  oath.2 

The  oath  was  the  only  important  question 
before  the  legislature.  The  Nullifiers  finally 
passed  a  law  abolishing  all  the  military  commis 
sions  in  the  state  militia  and  requiring  all  who 
should  thereafter  be  elected  to  take  the  following 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  state  in  addition  to  the 
•oath  of  office  required  by  the  state  constitution: 
"I,  A.B.,  do  solemnly  swear,  or  affirm,  that  I  will 
be  faithful  and  true  allegiance  bear  to  the  state 
of  South  Carolina;  and  that  I  will  support  and 

1  Messenger,  November  14,  26,  1833;    Mountaineer,  November 
23;  Courier,  November  23. 

2  Mercury,  November  26,  28,  1833;  Journal,  January  25,  1834. 


318    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 


„ 


aintain,  to  the  utmost  of  my  ability,  the  laws 
iand  constitution  of  this  state  and  the  United 
States;  so  help  me  God.'j  '  Of  course  the  Union 
men  opposed  it  bitterly,  but  in  vain.  Some  few 
of  the  Nullifiers  still  opposed  it;  of  the  Charleston 
delegation  only  one  fought  against  it.  There 
could  be  no  doubt  left  as  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  oath  intended  by  the  Nullifiers,  for  they  voted 
down  in  the  Senate  an  amendment  which  pro 
vided  "that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be 
construed  so  as  to  impair  or  in  any  manner  affect 
the  allegiance  now  due  by  the  constitution  of  this 
state  and  of  the  United  States."1 

(The  State  Rights  men  contemplated  a  further 
exclusion  of  Union  men,  for  they  passed  for  the 
first  time  a  bill  to  amend  the  state  constitution 
so  as  to  add  a  similar  oath  to  be  required  of  all 

officers  in  the  state.  nlThe  oath  was  to  be  extended 

I  n*- ,—f—  —  -    t 

from  the  military  to  the  civil  list Jj  As  an  amend 
ment  to  the  constitution  required 'the  approval  of 
two  successive  legislatures,  the  question  would 
not  be  finally  settled  until  the  next  year,  when 
a  new  legislature  would  convene.  The  oath  for 
all  officers,  which  was  proposed  to  be  incorporated 
in  the  constitution  by  amendment,  and  on  which 

1  Journal,  December  21,  1833;  Courier,  December  10. 


The  Test  Oath  319 

the  people  were  to  decide  finally  at  the  next  fall 
elections,  was: 

I  do  solemnly  swear,  or  affirm,  that  I  will  be  faithful 
and  true  allegiance  bear  to  the  state  of  South  Carolina 
so  long  as  I  may  continue  a  citizen  thereof;  and  that  I 
am  duly  qualified,  according  to  the  constitution  of  this 
state,  to  exercise  the  office  to  which  I  have  been  appointed; 
and  that  I  will,  to  the  best  of  my  abilities,  discharge 
the  duties  thereof  and  preserve,  protect  and  defend  the 
constitution  of  this  state  and  of  the  United  States;  so 
help  me  God.1 

Thirteen  of  the  senators,  belonging  to  the 
Union  party,  drew  up  and  published,  on  Decem 
ber  1 6,  a  protest  against  the  oath  as  unnecessary 
if  it  were  not  to  be  interpreted  as  interfering 
with  the  oath  to  the  federal  Constitution,  and  as 
unwarrantable  if  it  were  to  be  so  interpreted. 
A  plot  of  a  preliminary  vote  in  the  House  on  the 
oath  question  shows  that  the  ranks  of  the  Nulli- 
fiers  were  broken  somewhat  by  the  loss  of  some 
who  refused  to  continue  further  the  persecution 
of  the  Union  men.  But  those  who  at  first  hesi 
tated  were  later  persuaded  to  vote  for  the  oath.2 

1  Mercury,  April  30,  1834. 

3  The  preliminary  vote  in  the  House  was  60  to  44,  but  the  mili 
tary  act  and  the  oath  amendment  were  passed  by  89  to  23  in  the 
House,  and  31  to  13  in  the  Senate  (Courier,  December  17,  1833; 
Messenger,  July  30,  1834).  See  Map  IX  and  p.  107,  n.  3. 


320    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Although  the  oath  as  adopted  by  the  legislature 
did  not  in  so  many  words  demand  paramount 
allegiance  to  the  state,  the  Union  men  believed 
that  all  circumstances  pointed  to  that  interpre 
tation)  To  them  the  oath  in  the  military  bill 


Preliminary  House  vole  on  tesl 
oath,  December  13,  1835 
(Courier.  December  17,  1833) 


X 


0 
=#= 


divided 
majority  lor 
majority  against 

The  thirteen  wnators  who  pro- 
ti^tej  against  the  test  oath 
(I'Miot,. December  n.  1833). 


MAP  IX. — House  vote  on  the  test  oath,  1833 

was  pregnant  with  a  meaning  beyond  its  literal 
signification;  when  viewed  in  connection  with  the 
ordinance  of  the  late  convention,  from  which  they 
believed  it  might  be  said  to  have  emanated,  it 
became  to  all  intents  and  purposes  an  oath  of 


The  Test  Oath  321 

paramount  allegiance  to  the  state,  which  no  one 
who  believed  in  the  supremacy  of  the  federal 
Constitution  could  take  with  a  blameless  con 
science,  because  the  ordinance  had  denned  alle 
giance  as  something  distinct  from  and  superior 
to  the  obligation  to  support  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  the  state  and  the  Union,  and  declared  it 
to  belong  exclusively  to  the  state.  When  to  this 
was  added  the  fact  that  the  party  which  passed 
the  oath  of  allegiance  in  the  legislature  was  the 
same  that  defined  allegiance  in  the  convention; 
that  nearly  every  speaker  in  the  legislature  in  favor 
of  the  oath  supported  it  as  an  oath  of  paramount 
allegiance;  and  that  the  amendment  of  Daniel  E. 
Huger  in  the  Senate,  proposing  that  the  oath 
should  not  be  so  construed  as  to  impair  the 
allegiance  hitherto  due  to  the  Union,  was  defeated; 
its  motive  and  its  construction  became  too  obvious 
to  permit  a  Union  man  to  take  it  without  being 
recreant  to  his  principles.  The  Union  party 
would  be  ever  ready  to  swear  all  allegiance  and 
yield  all  obedience  to  the  state  consistent  with  the 
federal  Constitution,  but  no  lure  of  office,  no  fear 
of  martyrdom  would  induce  its  adherents  to 
assume  an  obligation  of  even  doubtful  import, 
exacted  by  the  dominant  party  as  a  political  test 


322     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

which  might  bring  suspicion  upon  their  motives 
and  principles. 

It  was  pointed  out  by  the  Union  men  that  there 
were  some  few  members  of  the  legislature  of  the 
ruling  party  who  still  insisted  that  the  oath  was 
expressly  put  in  its  present  form  to  leave  open  the 
question  of  exclusive  allegiance,  and  that  it  was 
not  intended  to  proscribe  the  Union  men  for 
adherence  to  their  former  faith.  These  gentle 
men  were  urged  to  speak  through  the  press, 
for  if  they  could  get  the  majority  of  their 
party  to  admit  that  the  oath  was  not  intended 
to  exact  paramount  allegiance  to  the  state, 
they  would  prove  it  to  be  harmless,  remove 
all  ground  for  excitement,  and  perhaps  dissi 
pate  the  portentous  cloud  of  civil  war.  But 
no  such  interpretation  came  from  the  dominant 
party.1 

The  Union  papers  called  attention  to  some  of 
what  they  regarded  as  "mean  details  of  the 
nefarious  military  bill."  The  first  section  of  this 
act  revoked  the  commissions  of  the  major-  and 
brigadier-generals  and  gave  the  legislature  power 
to  appoint  those  officers  ad  interim.  This  the 

1  Courier,  January  23,  1834.  This  was  the  key  to  the  com 
promise  as  finally  effected  in  December  of  1834. 


The  Test  Oath  323 

legislature  did  at  once,  and  thus  the  dominant 
party  dispossessed  the  only  two  Union  generals 
in  the  state,  James  Blair  and  James  Rogers.  The 
election  recurred  again  to  the  people,  but,  it  was 
asked,  was  not  this  one  move  toward  robbing  the 
people  of  their  elective  franchise? 

Section  six  provided  that  on  April  10  the  com 
mission  of  every  militia  officer  of  the  state  should 
be  vacated.  On  April  n  an  election  would  take 
place  throughout  the  state  for  the  purpose  of 
choosing  officers  to  fill  the  places  of  those  who  had 
been  turned  out.  In  some  districts  Union  men 
would  be  elected;  if  they  should  refuse  to  accept 
the  office  and  take  the  oath  prescribed,  the  colonel 
would  appoint  men  to  fill  the  vacancies  thus 
occasioned;  and  if  the  person  appointed  refused 
to  accept  the  office,  he  was  to  be  tried  by  a  court 
martial,  from  which  there  was  no  appeal,  and 
was  to  be  fined  $20. 

Another  section  of  this  " warlike  act"  provided 
that  the  buttons  worn  upon  the  uniforms  of  all 
officers  should  bear  the  " Palmetto  Emblem." 
At  a  time  of  less  excitement  the  palmetto  button 
would  not  have  been  objected  to;  but  at  this  time, 
since  this  emblem  had  been  adopted  as  the  insig 
nia  of  a  party  whose  sole  object  seemed  to  be  the 


324    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

dismemberment  of  the  republic,  the  Unionists  of 
the  mountain  districts  announced  that  they  would 
"never  suffer  it  to  disgrace  their  persons"  until 
they  had  been  "driven  across  'the  last  ditch/  ' 
Scarcely  a  Union  man  mentioned  this  act  without 
pronouncing  it  uncalled  for  and  tyrannical  in  the 
highest  degree.1 

Some  few  there  were  among  the  Union  party 
who  were  willing  to  take  the  oath,  regarding  it  as 
perfectly  harmless,  because  they  believed  it  could 
be  construed  as  each  individual  liked.  These 
were  assured  by  the  great  majority  of  the  party, 
however,  that  the  judges  who  were  very  likely  to 
be  Nullifiers  would  not  so  interpret  it,  but  would 
demand,  as  the  Nullification  party  urged  in  the 
legislature,  exclusive  allegiance  to  the  state  and 
a  paramount  obligation  to  defend  and  uphold  the 
sovereignty  of  South  Carolina  whenever  it  might 
come  into  conflict  with  the  sovereignty  of  the 
United  States.2 

Union  writers  told  their  party  that  its  sup 
porters  must  submit  in  quiet  humility,  migrate, 
or  resist.  If  the  first  course  were  followed,  they 

1  Mountaineer,  January  4,  1834. 

2  Patriot,  January  15,  1834;  Courier,  January  15;  Journal,  Jan 
uary  25. 


The  Test  Oath  325 

would  suffer  martyrdom,  it  was  true,  but  it  would 
be  that  kind  of  martyrdom  which  a  censorious 
world  termed  base  submission.  They  would  be 
marshaled  in  the  ranks  where  they  were  held 
unworthy  to  share  the  command;  they  would  be 
marched  to  and  fro,  be  exhibited,  sneered  at,  and 
despised  by  every  upstart  whose  "only  patent  for 
sense  or  capacity"  was  "his  diploma  from  the 
Jacobin  Club."  Would  "the  brave  mountain 
eers  of  Carolina  submit  to  it  ?  They  must  change 
their  nature  first."  If  they  migrated,  then  "they 
must  take  up  their  household  gods  and  with  all 
the  world  before  them  where  to  choose,  and 
Providence  their  guide,  seek  in  other  climes  a 
resting  place  where  a  free  man  could  deign  to  live. 
Aye,  they  must  leave  the  scenes  of  their  childhood 
and  the  graves  of  their  fathers  and  wander  abroad 
from  the  inhospitable  boundaries  of  a  once  gen 
erous  and  high  minded  state,  like  the  exiled  Poles, 
'a  caravan  of  woe.'  '  The  last  course,  resistance, 
would  "plunge  the  steel  into  the  bosoms  of  sons, 
fathers,  and  brothers."1 

Some  of  the  Union  men  argued  that  the  con 
vention  had  no  right  to  authorize  the  legislature 
to  enact  new  oaths  to  supersede  or  modify  those 

1  Courier,  January  18,  1834. 


326    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

contained  in  the  constitution.  The  convention 
itself,  they  said,  could  not  have  amended  the  con 
stitution  unless  it  had  been  elected  by  the  people 
for  this  particular  purpose.  At  all  events,  they 
declared,  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  could  not 
delegate  their  power  of  amendment;  yet  when 
they  authorized  the  legislature  to  impose  the  new 
oaths  they  undertook  to  delegate  authority  to 
alter  the  constitution,  where  an  oath  of  fidelity 
to  the  state  was  already  imposed;  it  therefore 
followed  that  the  legislature  could  not  pass  a  law 
imposing  a  new  oath  on  the  military  officers  of  the 
state,  pretending  to  derive  their  right  to  do  this 
from  the  convention.  The  Nullifiers  in  answer 
attacked  the  Union  party  for  now  objecting  that 
the  convention  went  beyond  its  true  power,  when 
in  objecting  to  the  call  of  the  convention  the 
Unionists  had  asserted  that  the  con  vent  ion  would 
be  all-powerful.  The  Union  presses  then  answered 
that  it  had  been  argued  that  a  convention  might 
act  as  if  it  were  omnipotent,  but  not  that  it  would 
have  the  right  so  to  act,  and  that  the  event  had 
justified  the  fears  of  its  opponents.1 

In  the  upper  part  of  the  state,  in  the  moun 
tainous  districts  and  in  Greenville  especially,  the 

1  Patriot,  February  19,  April  5,  1834. 


The  Test  Oath  327 

Union  men  showed  signs  of  forcible  resistance. 
When  the  ordinance  of  1832  was  passed,  "the 
freemen  of  the  mountain  districts"  were  much 
exasperated,  but  the  excitement  then  was  said 
to  be  not  nearly  so  intense  or  universal  as  now. 
Immediately  after  the  legislature  adjourned, 
meetings  were  held  in  rapid  succession,  each  one 
seeming  more  determined  in  tone  than  the  pre 
ceding.  On  January  4  the  resolutions  of  a  local 
Greenville  meeting  exhorted  the  officers  to  hold 
their  commissions  in  defiance  of  the  act,  and  the 
people  swore  not  only  to  obey  no  officer  who  took 
the  oath,  but  to  stand  by  their  "own  true  officers 
to  death."  In  Darlington,  Spartanburg,  York, 
Anderson,  Pickens,  Laurens,  Abbeville,  Chester, 
Horry,  Williamsburg,  and  other  places  in  the 
interior,  local  and  general  district  meetings  were 
held  to  denounce  the  oath  and  pledge  various 
degrees  of  resistance  to  it.  The  Mercury  tried  to 
make  light  of  this  "silly  effort  to  get  up  an  excite 
ment,"  but  it  soon  proved  to  be  more  than  a  "silly 
effort";  it  was  an  outburst  of  public  indignation 
which  deserved  and  demanded  consideration.1 

1  Mountaineer,  January  u,  18,  25,  February  i,  15,  22,  March  i, 
1834;  Patriot,  January  17,  23,  February  6,  21,  March  i,  n;  Jour 
nal,  January  18,  February  i,  March  8. 


328    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

On  sale  day,  on  February  3,  a  district  meeting 
was  held  in  Greenville,  according  to  previous 
announcement.  It  was  pronounced  the  largest 
assemblage  of  Union  men  ever  convened  in  the 
district.  Resolutions  were  adopted  which  did  not 
contain  as  strong  language  as  several  of  those 
from  the  local  meetings,  and  a  respectable  minor 
ity  of  the  committee  of  twenty-four  who  drew 
them  up  objected  to  them  on  that  account.  The 
resolutions  declared  that  the  Unionists  would 
first  use  those  means  which  were  legal  to  get  a 
repeal  of  the  military  act  and  an  abandonment 
of  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution. 
They  would  not  in  any  way  aid  or  assist  in  carry 
ing  into  effect  the  act,  and  should  an  attempt  be 
made  to  levy  fines  upon  them  for  their  refusal 
so  to  act,  they  would  look  for  protection  to  the 
"  virtue,  intelligence,  independence,  and  patriot 
ism"  of  their  fellow-citizens.  In  order  to  defeat 
the  operations  of  the  military  act  they  would  run 
Union  candidates  for  all  militia  offices  to  be  filled 
on  April  n,  and  they  would  neither  obey  any 
orders  nor  do  militia  duty  under  officers  who  might 
be  appointed  over  them.  In  March  the  people 
of  the  lower  country  were  up  and  doing.  Although 
they  did  not  move  as  soon  as  the  people  of  the 


The  Test  Oath  329 

mountains,  they  appeared  to  make  up  for  lost 
time  by  their  spirit  and  zeal  in  opposition  to  the 
work  of  the  legislature.1 

In  February  there  was  agitation  for  another 
meeting  of  the  Union  convention  to  decide  on  a 
course  of  action  for  the  party  at  large  before 
April  1 1 .  The  result  was  a  call  for  the  convention 
to  meet  in  Greenville  on  the  fourth  Monday  in 
March,  and  the  districts  at  once  began  to  appoint 
delegates.2  On  March  24  the  convention  met 
with  no  delegates.  A  committee  of  twenty, 
composed  of  a  delegate  from  each  district  repre 
sented,  was  appointed  to  draft  the  customary 
"Preamble  and  Resolutions."  Several  communi 
cations  were  presented  from  districts  whose 
delegates  were  unavoidably  prevented  from 
attending;  they  pledged  life  and  property  to 
sustain  the  proceedings  of  the  convention.  The 
short  notice  given  and  the  lack  of  speedy  means 
of  travel  made  it  impracticable  or  impossible  for 
many  distinguished  members  of  the  party  to 
reach  Greenville  in  time.3 

1  Mountaineer,  February  8,  March  15,  1834;  Journal,  March  8; 
Patriot,  March  17. 

3  Mountaineer,  February  22,  March  9,  1834. 
3  Mountaineer,  March  29,  1834. 


330    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  preamble  reviewed  the  objections  of  the 
Union  men  to  the  oath  and  stated  that  they 
regarded  this  attempt  to  make  them  violate  their 
obligations  to  the  United  States  as  one  of  a  series 
of  measures  devised  to  destroy  the  government 
of  the  country  and  to  dissolve  the  Union;  they 
expressed  the  hope  and  the  belief  that  their  oppo 
nents  would  not  be  insistent  to  the  point  of 
shedding  blood,  but  if  they  were  driven  to  it, 
force  would  be  opposed  by  force.  They  would 
try  every  peaceful  and  constitutional  remedy  first 
and  hoped  that  the  judicial  tribunals  would  relieve 
them.  The  resolutions  were  much  like  those 
of  the  earlier  Greenville  district  meeting;  they 
recommended  that  the  Unionists  should  elect 
officers  of  their  own  party  whenever  they  had  the 
power  to  do  so,  and  not  serve  under  any  officer 
who  might  be  appointed  to  command  them. 
They  then  provided  for  a  system  of  organization 
for  the  party.  A  committee  of  five  members  was 
appointed  to  correspond  with  a  committee  of  three 
in  each  regiment,  who  should  correspond  with  a 
committee  of  three  or  more  in  each  beat  company. 
These  committees  were  together  to  form  a  con 
vention  to  meet  whenever  and  wherever  required 
to  do  so  by  a  majority  of  the  committee  of  five.1 

1  Mountaineer,  March  29,  1834. 


The  Test  Oath  331 

Though  the  members  of  the  convention  seemed 
to  display  an  unalterable  resolution  to  "resist 
even  unto  death  if  necessary"  rather  than  submit 
to  the  "tyranny  of  their  opponents/'  they  seemed 
anxious  to  adopt  such  a  course  as  would  make  the 
Nullifiers  the  aggressors.  Without  commencing 
or  provoking  any  hostilities  they  tried  to  make 
preparations  to  repel  any  attack  made  upon 
themselves. 

Meetings  were  soon  held  in  the  various  dis 
tricts  to  receive  the  reports  of  their  delegates  and 
approve  the  action  of  the  convention.  At  the 
Charleston  meeting  Joel  R.  Poinsett  related  an 
incident  of  the  convention  which  showed  how 
serious  the  Union  men  considered  their  position. 
The  officers  of  a  regiment  assured  him  that  if  the 
test  oath  should  be  enforced  they  were  ready  with 
their  regiment  to  shoulder  their  muskets  and  "  seek 
liberty  of  conscience  and  the  right  of  freemen  in 
another  clime";  they  desired  to  know  from  him 
whether  the  general  government  would  not  assign 
them  a  territory  for  that  purpose.  He  told  them 
to  "stand  fast";  that  they  had  a  right  to  the 
soil,  and  that  the  "laws  and  authority  of  their 
country"  would  protect  and  shield  them  from 
tyranny  where  they  stood;  that  for  his  part,  here 


332     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

he  was  born,  here  he  was  resolved  to  die,  and  no 
persecution  should  drive  him  from  the  soil  of 
Carolina,  where  "the  Star  Spangled  Banner 
should  be  his  shroud,  pure  and  spotless,  he  hoped; 
but  even  if  stained  with  blood,  still  it  should  be 
his  shroud."1 

Meantime  the  Nullifiers  persistently  claimed 
that  there  was  nothing  in  the  oaths  to  which 
exception  could  be  taken,  Their  papers  day 
after  day  printed  them  as  the  best  argument  that 
there  was  nothing  objectionable  in  them.  Their 
editors  argued  that  neither  oath  was  at  all  differ 
ent  from  that  in  half  the  states  of  the  Union.2 
They  protested  that  the  people  of  the  interior 
were  being  aroused  by  misrepresentation.  Some 
belittled  the  paper  belligerency  of  the  Union 
party  and  pronounced  it  simply  a  scheme  to 
frighten  the  opposition  into  calling  an  extra  session 
of  the  legislature  to  repeal  the  military  oath. 
Others  believed  that  the  agitation  was  waged  as 
a  war  cry,  needed  by  the  leaders,  men  anxious  to 
run  for  Congress,  to  keep  the  party  together. 

1  Patriot,  April  i,  1834.    Poinsett  Papers:  Poinsett  to  the  George 
town  meeting,  April  18. 

2  Messenger,  February  5,  March  19,  1834;  Mercury,  February  18. 
The  oaths  required  in  Maryland,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massa 
chusetts,  Kentucky,  New  York,  and  Georgia  were  cited. 


The  Test  Oath  333 

The  Greenville  convention,  indeed,  was  said  to 
be  nothing  more  than  a  means  to  regain  party 
ascendancy,  and  the  Mercury  constantly  referred 
to  it  as  "the  late  electioneering  doings."1 

When  the  elections  for  militia  officers  were  held, 
several  Union  men  were  elected.  These  men 
refused  to  take  the  oath,  and  their  commissions 
were  withheld.  Several  cases  went  to  the  courts,2 
but  probably  one  of  the  first,  which  attracted  the 
most  attention  and  was  followed  eagerly  by  all 
as  the  test  case,  arose  in  Charleston.  Judge 
E.  H.  Bay,  of  Charleston,  on  March  4  rendered 
a  decision  in  favor  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
military  oath.  In  this  case  there  was  a  motion 

1  Mercury,  February  18,  24,  March  31,  April  24,  1834;  Messenger, 
February  26,  March  19.     The  Mercury  made  many  efforts  to  dis 
credit  and  ridicule  the  convention.     On  April  5  it  said:   "We  learn 
that  some  of  the  meetings  which  sent  delegates  to  the  Nation  of 
Greenville  were  exceedingly  select  and  private,  and  the  secret  well 
kept  for  a  time,  as  it  was  entrusted  to  very  few.     At  Anderson  it  is 
said  that  the  meeting  was  over  before  the  people  knew  it  was  to  take 
place,  and  if  we  remember  right,  that  it  was  necessarily  unanimous, 
as  besides  the  chairman  and  secretary  there  was  a  'respectable' 
attendance  of  only  one  person.     The  chairman  may  have  opened  the 
meeting  as  the  Dean  did  the  service  when  his  congregation  consisted 
of  his  Clerk,  with  'Dearly  beloved  Roger,'  instead  of  'Dearly  beloved 
Brethren.'  " 

2  Perry  Collection,  Vol.  XIV,  opinion  of  Judge  J.  S.  Richardson 
in  the  case  of  McDonald  v.  McMcckin,  Lancaster  district,  April, 
1834. 


334    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

for  a  mandamus  to  Colonel  B.  F.  Hunt,  who  com 
manded  the  Sixteenth  Regiment  of  the  South 
Carolina  Militia,  requiring  him  to  give  a  com 
mission  to  Edward  McCrady  as  first  lieutenant 
in  the  Washington  Light  Infantry,  a  company  of 
the  Sixteenth  Regiment.  The  Judge  held  that 
Colonel  Hunt  was  warranted  in  refusing  the  com 
mission  because  McCrady  had  refused  to  take  the 
oath  prescribed  in  the  tenth  section  of  the  militia 
act.  An  appeal  was  immediately  made  to  the 
court  of  appeals.  The  lawyers  on  the  Union  side 
announced  that  they  expected  to  carry  it  from 
that  court  to  the  federal  court,  if  necessary.  The 
case  was  brought  before  the  court  of  appeals  in 
Charleston  on  March  31,  but  as  one  of  the  three 
judges  was  not  able  to  attend,  the  case  was 
ordered  to  be  reargued  at  the  next  session  of  the 
court  in  Columbia  in  May.1 

During  April  and  May  the  papers  were  filled 
with  the  arguments  before  the  court.  Every 
part  of  them  was  picked  to  pieces,  and  some 
references  were  made  to  the  court  by  the  Nulli- 
fiers  which  the  Union  presses  cited  as  efforts  to 
intimidate  the  judges.2  On  June  2,  after  a  hearing 

1  Mercury,  March  26,  1834;  Mountaineer,  April  12. 

2  Patriot,  April  29,  May  i,  1834. 


The  Test  Oath  335 

that  had  been  watched  eagerly  all  over  the  state, 

the  court  of  appeals  by  a  vote  of  two  to  one 

/annulled The  test  oath;  "Judges  Joseph  Johnson 

/and  J.  B.  O'Neall  were  together  against  Judge 

/  William  Harper.  They  held  that  the  convention 
had  gone  beyond  its  powers  in  its  attempt  to 
delegate  power  to  the  legislature  to  pass  the  oath 

j    as  an  ordinary  enactment. 

-The  Union  papers,  of  course,  rejoiced  greatly, 
and  some  predicted  that  this  would  put  an  end 
to  the  oath  controversy.1  (The  Nullifiers  soon 
reminded  them,  however,  mat  this  was  by  no 
means  the  end.  They  meant  to  make  the  oath 
the  issue  in  the  next  election,  carry  it  through  the 
legislature  again  by  two-thirds,  and  thus  have  it 
a  part  of  the  constitution,  beyond  the  reach  of 
Union  judges.y 

Some  of  the  Nullifiers  saw  that  it  would  be  best 
to  take  no  rash  or  violent  step  which  would 
excite  sympathy  for  their  opponents;  they 
resolved  quietly  to  direct  their  whole  energies  to 
the  fall  elections.3  But  there  were  others  who 

1  Courier,  June  4,  1834. 

2  Mercury,  June  5,  1834. 

3  Hammond  Papers:  William  C.  Preston  to  Hammond,  June  12, 
1834;  Calhoun  Correspondence:  Calhoun  to  Pickens,  June  5. 


336    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

thought  that  the  ultra-consolidation  opinions  of 
O'Neall  and  Johnson  justified  immediate  and 
severe  rebuke.  Some  talked  of  an  immediate  call 
of  the  legislature  to  remove  the  judges.  Others 
thought  the  governor  ought  to  nullify  the  deci 
sion  by  withholding  commissions.1  Some  of  the 
presses  at  once  began  and  continued  for  some  time 
an  abusive  tirade  against  the  Union  judges.2  Some 
there  were  who  thought  that  the  convention  had 
committed  an  error  in  discussing  the  oath  and 
in  giving  it  an  importance  that  it  would  not  other 
wise  have  had;  that  the  legislature  had  made 
a  greater  error  in  passing  it  in  the  military  bill; 
and  that  the  greatest  of  all  errors  would  be  to 
attempt  to  retrieve  by  calling  an  extra  session  of 
the  legislature  to  remove  the  judges.  Some  even 
admitted  that  the  judges  were  right  in  their 
decision,  but  felt  that  the  doctrines  put  forth  by 
Johnson  and  O'Neall  were  uncalled  for  and  so 
extreme  as  to  demand  the  removal  of  these  judges 
in  a  quiet  way  at  least.3 

State  Rights  meetings  were  held  in  many  quar 
ters  to  denounce  the  decision  of  the  court  as  con- 

1  Hammond  Papers:    Angus  Patterson  to  Hammond,  June  2, 
1834;  Preston  to  Hammond,  June  12. 

2  Mountaineer,  June  14,  1834;  Journal,  June  14. 

3  Hammond  Papers:  Preston  to  Hammond,  June  12,  1834. 


The  Test  Oath  337 

taining  dangerous  doctrines,  to  declare  that  the 
appeal  court  should  be  remodeled  or  abolished, 
and  to  suggest  an  extra  session  of  the  legislature 
for  the  purpose  of  passing  a  law  denning  treason 
against  the  state  and  providing  new  safeguards 
for  the  state.  Others  were  more  moderate  and 
would  leave  it  all  to  the  October  elections;  to 
this  end  they  began  to  revive  the  State  Rights 
associations  so  that  they  might  address  the 
people  on  the  heresies  of  the  decision  and  rally 
them  to  the  election.1 

The  Union  papers  in  turn  defended  Judges 
O'Neall  and  Johnson  and  had  much  to  say  about 
the  abuse  of  them  and  the  agitation  to  remodel 
the  court.  The  independence  of  the  judiciary 
was  strongly  pleaded  for.2 

Governor  Hayne  made  the  deciding  move  on 
June  12.  He  issued  a  proclamation  announcing 
the  decision  of  the  court  of  appeals  as  effective 
and  his  own  decision  to  issue  commissions  on  the 
basis  of  the  old  oath  without  requiring  the  new 
oneV\  He  had  decided  on  this  course  only  after 


1  Mercury,  June  9,  12,  1834;   Messenger,  June  18;   Mountaineer, 
June  21. 

2  Patriot,  June  10,  1834;  Courier,  June  n;  Journal,  June  14. 

3  Mercury,  June  13,  1834. 


33  8    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

thorough  consideration  and  consultation  with 
John  C.  Calhoun,  William  C.  Preston,  James 
Hamilton,  Jr.,  George  McDuffie,  and  other  leaders 
of  the  party.  He  had  discovered  that  the  ques 
tion  was  one  of  great  delicacy  and  difficulty,  and 
one  concerning  which  there  was  much  difference 
of  opinion.  "On  the  one  hand,"  he  said  in  a 
letter  to  Hammond,  written  on  the  day  he  issued 
the  proclamation,  "the  outrage  is  so  monstrous 
that  the  failure  to  meet  it  promptly  and  decisively 
may  have  a  depressing  effect;  but  on  the  other 
hand,  there  is  much  danger  of  rash  action  under 
the  impulse  of  popular  excitement."  The  decisive 
point  was  this:  if  the  legislature  were  called  at 
once,  what  could  it  do  ?  The  members  of  the  legis 
lature  could  not  call  a  convention,  amend  the 
constitution,  impeach  or  remove  the  judges,  nor 
do  any  act  which  required  a  vote  of  two- thirds. 
This  he  had  ascertained  "beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt."  An  unsuccessful  attempt  at  any  one  of 
those  measures  might  prove  disastrous  to  the 
party.  The  members  of  the  legislature  therefore 
could  do  nothing  more  than  express  opinions  and 
amend  the  militia  law  in  conformity  with  the 
decision,  unless  they  should  remodel  the  court 
so  as  to  have  the  decision  reversed.  This  last 


The  Test  Oath  339 

possibility,  Hayne  thought,  would  be  extremely 
hazardous  while  the  amendment  of  the  consti 
tution  was  pending  before  the  public,  and  he  knew 
that  it  would  produce  a  schism  in  the  party. 

Yet  anything  short  of  this  would  be  doing  nothing,  for 
it  would  be  worse  than  useless  to  attempt  to  legislate 
with  a  partisan  court  ready  to  arrest  your  laws.  As 
the  legislature  can  do  nothing  effectual  at  present,  except 
what  it  would  not  be  expedient  to  do,  or  even  to  attempt, 
I  think  there  is  nothing  to  be  gained  by  an  extra  call  while 
it  would  be  attended  with  some  risk  of  dissensions  among 
ourselves  and  injury  to  our  cause  from  rash  measures. 
The  delay  of  a  few  months,  if  we  can  in  the  meantime 
secure  the  amendment  to  the  constitution,  will  give  us 
invincible  strength.  The  moderation  thus  displayed,  the 
decisive  expression  of  public  opinion  at  the  polls,  followed 
by  the  adoption  of  the  constitutional  amendment,  settling 
the  question  of  allegiance  in  South  Carolina  forever,  will 
give  us  a  moral  power  against  which  the  judges  cannot 
stand  up. 

The  only  risk  involved  in  this  course  was  that 
it  would  fall  short  of  public  expectation  and 
thereby  paralyze  the  energies  of  the  party.  This 
could  be  avoided,  Hayne  believed,  by  public 
meetings  and  addresses,  a  revival  of  the  asso 
ciations,  and  all  the  means  previously  found  so 
successful.  "If  the  governor/'  he  added,  "shall 


34Q    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

be  considered  as  having  erred  in  not  giving  vent 
to  the  indignant  feelings  of  the  party,  by  an 
immediate  call  of  the  legislature,  the  blame  can 
be  thrown  upon  him  without  impairing  the  spirit 
of  the  party,  who  will  know  that  he  goes  out  of 
office  in  December  next,  and  even  if  he  were  so 
disposed  could  present  no  further  obstacle  in 
their  way."1 

During  the  remainder  of  the  summer  the 
Union  papers  criticized  the  dissenting  opinion 
of  Judge  Harper  and  defended  the  opinions  of 
Judges  O'Neall  and  Johnson,  while  the  Nulli 
fication  papers  were  just  as  ready  to  denounce  the 
latter  and  defend  the  former.2  This  led  to 
several  series  of  articles  on  theories  of  sovereignty, 
allegiance,  and  obedience,  all  of  which  were  part 
of  the  campaign  of  education  for  the  fall  elections.3 

1  Hammond  Papers:  Hayne  to  Hammond,  June  12,  1834. 

2  Mercury,  June  30,  July  i,  1834;  Patriot,  June  30. 

3  One  of  these  Union  arguments  appeared  in  the  Patriot,  July  24, 
1834:  "The  Mercury  has  been  for  some  days  past  elaborating  several 
essays  into  a  tissue  of  abstract  reasonings,  to  prove  that  practical 
is  not  ultimate  sovereignty — in  other  words,  that  the  government 
of  a  state  is  carried  on  by  agents  who  merely  exercise  the  power  of 
the  people.     Why,  this  might  be  granted,  and  much  more,  without 
bringing  the  editor  any  nearer  to  his  final  inference,  that  the  judges 
may  not  set  aside  the  unconstitutional  proceedings  of  a  legislature 
or  convention.    Judge  O'Neall  does  not  deny  the  right  of  the  people 


The  Test  Oath  341 

In  May,  before  the  decision  of  the  court  of 
appeals  had  been  rendered,  the  Nuilifiers  made 
a  great  clamor  over  a  discovery  they  claimed  to 
have  made,  that  the  Union  party  was  organizing 
a  military  force  to  resist  the  enforcement  of  the 
oath.  Even  before  this  there  were  rumors  that 
the  Union  men  were  preparing  a  military  organ 
ization  to  oppose  the  decision,  which  the  Nuili 
fiers  expected  would  uphold  the  oath  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  two  of  the  three  judges  were  Union 

to  control  their  agents,  whether  legislative,  executive,  or  judicial,  but 
it  must  be  a  control  exercised  in  legal  form,  and  he  distinguishes  very 
properly  between  the  power  of  the  people,  as  exhibited  in  the  final 
right  of  revolution,  and  their  power  as  exercised  under  the  consti 
tutional  limitations  and  restrictions  which  they  themselves  have 
imposed. 

"Now,  conceding  to  the  Mercury  all  that  it  contends  for;  grant 
ing  that  allegiance  is  something  different  from  obedience  (and  not,  as 
Judge  Harper  argues,  merely  the  highest  species  of  obedience); 
that  allegiance  is  due  to  nothing  but  sovereignty;  we  ask,  conceding 
all  this,  if  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  not  an  agency  of 
the  people  of  South  Carolina,  precisely  as  their  state  government  is; 
if  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  their  Constitution 
exactly  as  the  state  constitution  is;  if  the  oaths  in  that  Constitution 
are  not  as  binding  on  their  agents,  judicial,  legislative,  and  executive, 
in  the  same  degree  and  manner  as  the  oaths  in  the  state  constitution  ? 
Well,  none  of  this  being  disputed,  we  ask  the  Mercury  at  what  time 
did  the  sovereignty  of  South  Carolina  annul  the  oath  in  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  by  which  it  bound  all  its  agents  to  observe 
that  fundamental  law,  anything  in  the  laws  and  constitution  of  a 
state  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  It  being  not  disputed  that 


342    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

men.1  The  basis  for  the  clamor  of  the  Nullifiers 
was  the  following  letter,  which  was  secured  from 
a  messenger  by  the  Nullifiers  and  widely  pub 
lished  by  them.  It  was  dated  Abbeville  Court 
House,  April  17,  1834,  and  read: 

The  committee  of  five  have  assigned  the  five  divisions 
of  this  state.  This  district  is  included  in  the  division 
assigned  to  Colonel  Robert  Cunningham,  who  has  just 
written  to  me  to  urge  an  immediate  and  active  organiza 
tion  of  the  regiments  of  the  district,  and  report  to  him 

that  great  law  remains  unabrogated  and  the  oath  referred  to  imre- 
pealed  by  any  act  of  the  sovereignty  of  South  Carolina,  we  demand 
if  the  proceedings  of  a  convention  are  of  higher  authority  to  the 
judges  than  the  proceedings  of  a  legislature.  The  oath  in  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  is  still  there.  The  people  of  South 
Carolina  in  1787  bound  their  judicial  servants,  in  common  with  their 
other  servants,  to  observe  that  oath,  as  the  condition  of  office.  The 
people  of  South  Carolina  have  not  annulled  that  sanction,  by  any 
formal  or  informal  act.  Must  their  judges  take  it  for  granted  when 
anything  is  done  in  convention  of  the  people  repugnant  to  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States,  that  the  declaration  of  the  supremacy  of 
that  instrument  over  state  laws  and  constitutions,  and  the  oath  in 
confirmation  of  it,  are  impliedly  annulled  ?  Until  this  be  shown,  all 
that  is  contended  for  may  be  safely  granted  without  bringing  the 
advocates  of  state  sovereignty  any  nearer  to  the  conclusion  that, 
holding  allegiance  to  that  sovereignity,  they  may  not  set  aside  an 
ordinance  of  a  convention  equally  with  an  act  of  the  legislature. 
Judges  O'Neall  and  Johnson  are  obeying  the  sovereignty  of  South 
Carolina  expressly  declared  in  1787  and  not  as  made  out  by  con 
structive  inference  in  1834." 

1  Messenger,  May  14,  1834. 


The  Test  Oath  343 

without  delay  the  effective  strength,  equipments,  etc.,  etc. 
of  each  company.  You  will  please,  therefore,  make  out 
the  report  for  the  company  you  command  and  send  it  to 
me  without  the  least  delay;  you  and  your  subaltern 
officers  constitute  the  company  committee.  I  have  here 
drawn  a  form  for  your  guide. 

It  was  signed  by  Thomas  P.  Spierin,  and  a  post 
script  was  added,  "N.B.  Confine  your  return 
to  Union  men  only.7'1 

With  this  letter  was  published  a  form  for 
reports  from  the  company  officers  as  to  the 
munitions  they  could  rely  upon.  In  the  list  were 
mentioned  many  tools  and  implements  which 
might  be  used  as  weapons,  among  which  were 
"battle-axes  and  butcher  knives.'7  These  seemed 
particularly  to  delight  the  fancy  of  the  Nullifiers 
for  purposes  of  ridicule  and  scorn.  The  "exclu 
sive  friends  of  peace  and  order,"  as  the  Nullifiers 
termed  their  opponents,  were  now  said  to  have 
been  guilty  of  unpardonable  deceit,  for  while 
publicly  adopting  resolutions  in  their  convention 
favoring  resort  to  the  court  of  appeals,  professing 
nothing  but  peace,  seeming  to  have  given  up  all 
idea  of  military  organization,  they  were  secretly 
organizing  a  force  to  be  armed  with  guns,  bayonets, 

1  Mercury,  May  21,  1834;  Messenger,  May  21,  28. 


344    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

butcher  knives,  and  battle-axes  to  resist  by  vio 
lence  the  decision  of  the  court,  should  it  be  adverse 
to  their  wishes.  Surely  they  could  not  pretend 
that  all  this  preparation  was  merely  for  the  pur 
pose  of  defense,  said  their  accusers.1  That  was, 
however,  distinctly  the  purpose  alleged  by  the 
Unionsts;  they  wished  to  guard  against  an  at 
tempt  of  the  Nullification  party  to  enforce  the 
oath  in  spite  of  an  adverse  decision.  They  justi 
fied  the  contemplation  of  such  a  possibility  by 
the  fact  that  the  Nullification  officers  were 
enforcing  the  military  oath  while  its  consti 
tutionality  was  still  pending  before  the  court  of 
appeals.2 

After  the  decision  of  the  court  was  announced 
and  the  Nullifiers  had  decided  to  abide  by  it  and 
await  the  result  of  the  next  election,  they  fre 
quently  praised  ithemselves  for  their  moderation 
and  forbearance.]:  Necessity,  however,  probably 
more  than  anything  else,  dictated  the  adoption  of 
this  policy.  Many  who  thought  that  Robert 
Cunningham  "should  have  been  made  a  head 
shorter,"  asked,  "Why  have  we  not  an  act  against 
treason  ?"  and  declared  that  it  "should  have  been 

1  Messenger,  May  21,  28,  June  25,  1834. 

2  Patriot,  May  19,  22,  1834;  Courier,  May  23,  24. 


The  Test  Oath  345 

one  of  our  first  moves."1  Other  Nullifiers  there 
were  who  considered  the  entire  unfortunate  affair 
the  result  of  bad  management,  for  which  Governor 
Hayne  was  largely  responsible;  they  believed 
that  he  more  than  anyone  else  was  to  blame  for 
the  oath  being  put  into  the  military  act  and 
for  not  raising  the  issue  solely  in  the  form  of 
the  constitutional  amendment.  By  this  policy  the 
Union  party,  instead  of  being  disorganized  as  the 
governor  had  hoped,  was  furnished  with  a  rallying 
cry  and  was  greatly  strengthened.2 
| !  From  the  time  of  the  governor's  proclamation 
me  Nullifiers  began  actively  to  organize  and  to 
campaign  for  the  fall  contest. j '  In  Charleston  the 
Revolutionary  Society  and  the  '76  Association 
had  coalesced  and  formed  the  Whig  Association, 
a  Nullification,  anti- Jackson  political  organiza 
tion.  This  proved  the  cue  for  the  rest  of  the 
state,  and  during  the  summer  Whig  associations 
were  formed  in  many  quarters.  July  4  was  a 
convenient  occasion  for  the  promotion  of  these 
societies.3 

1  Hammond  Papers:  Preston  to  Hammond,  June  12,  1834. 

2  Hammond  Papers:  James  Jones  to  Hammond,  April  14,  1834; 
Angus  Patterson  to  Hammond,  June  22. 

3  Mercury,  June   23,  July,   1834;    Messenger,  July    9,    16,    30, 
August  13. 


346     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  Nullification  party  declared  that  the  great 
battle  which  was  to  decide  whether  it  were  to  lose 
the  fruits  of  all  its  victories  in  the  cause  of  state 
rights  was  to  be  fought  at  the  polls  in  October. 
Even  Judge  Johnson  had  been  constrained  to 
admit  that  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  amend 
ment  of  the  constitution  would  remove  all  legal 
objections  and  compel  the  judges  to  enforce  it.1 
It  was  clear,  therefore,  that  the  Union  men  must 
by  some  means  manage  to  defeat  the  amendment 
or  be  compelled  to  take  the  oath  and  acknowledge 
their  allegiance  to  the  state!  To  prevent  this 
contingency  no  stone  must  be  left  unturned,  and 
greater  efforts  must  be  made  in  the  October  elec 
tion  than  had  been  put  forth  at  any  stage  of  the 
controversy.  It  was,  for  the  Union  party  and 
its  principles,  asserted  the  Nullifiers,  a  struggle 
for  life  or  death.  Allegiance  to  South  Carolina 
recognized  the  sovereignty  of  the  state;  and  men 
might  say  what  they  pleased,  but  the  true — they 
felt  that  they  might  say  almost  the  only — differ 
ence  between  the  parties  arose  from  the  admission 
or  denial  of  state  sovereignty.  The  Unionists 
really  believed,  said  the  Nullifiers,  that  the  govern- 

1  Some  Union  men,  however,  still  held  that  it  would  be  against 
the  United  States  Constitution  and  therefore  null  and  void. 


The  Test  Oath  347 

ment  was  a  consolidated  government,  a  great 
nation,  one  and  indivisible;  while  the  State  Rights 
party  believed  it  to  be  a  federal  or  confederated 
government,  founded  in  compact  between  free, 
sovereign,  and  independent  states,  united  only 
for  special  purposes,  written  down  in  the  Consti 
tution,  and  in  which  each  state  retained  its  sov 
ereignty  unimpaired;  this  was  the  point  on  which 
the  whole  controversy  turned,  and  the  amend 
ment  of  the  constitution  would  settle  the  ques 
tion  in  South  Carolina  forever;  this  was  the 
vital  importance  of  the  October  elections.  The 
Uniojnsts_  knew  all  this,  said  the  State  Rights 
men,  and  though  confessedly  in  a  minority  they 
still  hoped  they  might  be  able  to  carry  one-third  of 
tHejnenibers  either  in  the  Senate  or  in  the  House; 
and  as  this  jwould  defeat  the  amendment  they 
would  pursue  this  last  hope  in  great  desperation. 
Let  the  State  Rights  party  then  be  on  its  guard.1 
I  I  In  an  effort  to  discredit  the  Union  party,  the 
Nullifiers  did  all  they  could  to  prove  that  the 
Unionists  were  contemplating  a  resort  to  arms 
to  resist  the  oath. J  /To  prove  this,  and  to  show 
that  the  creed  of  the  party  was  one  of  pure  con 
solidation,  they  cited  an  appeal  in  behalf  of  the 

1  Mercury,  June  24,  1834. 


348    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Union  party  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
published  in  the  National  Intelligencer  and  copied 
by  the  Union  papers  in  South  Carolina.  They 
asserted  that  the  appeal  was  no  less  than  an 
advance  to  a  close  union  between  the  consolida- 
tionists  of  the  North  and  of  the  South.  It  was 
a  proffer  from  the  latter  of  an  offensive  and 
defensive  alliance  to  secure  in  advance  the  sym 
pathy  and  support  of  its  "national"  allies,  when 
the  Unionists  should  be  "driven  to  the  field"  to 
uphold  the  creed  of  Daniel  Webster.  They  had 
thus  registered  their  adherence  to  the  champion 
of  the  tariff  and  the  sworn  enemy  of  southern 
and  state  rights.  In  his  cause  and  for  his 
creed  they  were  willing  to  take  up  arms. 
This  appeal,  said  the  Nullifiers,  displayed  the 
Unionists  in  their  true  light,  as  betrayers  of  the 
South.1 

The  Union  men  worked  strenuously  to  prevent 
their  opponents  frorn  gaining  complete  control  of 
another  legislature.  ||They  pointed  out  that  the 
Nullifiers  would  require  not  only  all  officers  to 
take  this  "revolting  oath,"  but  that  the  voters 
might  be  called  upon  next  to  do  so.  Then  would 

1  Mercury,  August  n,  21,  November  17,  1834;  Messenger, 
August  13,  20. 


The  Test  Oath  349 

come  the  bill  defining  treason,  with  its  "pains 
and  penalties/'  the  destruction  of  the  appeal 
court  and  anything  else  that  might  "enter  the 
heads  of  the  most  reckless  despots  that  ever  ruled 
a  kingdom,  republic,  or  state."1 1  It  was  proposed 
by  the  Union  leaders  that  the  people  hold  meetings 
throughout  the  state  and  sign  a  solemn  protest 
against  the  test  oath.j  'Their  numbers,  when 
shown  to  the  legislature,  might  have  its  influence. 
It  was  suggested  that  papers  should  be  drawn  up 
for  this  purpose  in  every  beat  company  in  the 
state,  and  that  every  man  who  "valued  his  liberty 
and  the  freedom  of  thinking  for  himself'  should 
sign  such  a  remonstrance.  In  this  way  only  could 
the  strength  of  the  anti-test  oath  party  be  made 
known,  for  the  representation  in  the  coming 
legislature,  it  was  said,  would  not  be  a  fair  expres 
sion  of  the  voice  of  the  people  on  the  subject  /for 
example,  in  Pendleton  district  there  were  said  to 
be  1,400  voters  opposed  to  the  test  oath,  yet  that 
district  would  send  her  whole  representation,  seven 
representatives  and  one  senator,  in  favor  of  the 
oath;  in  York  district  there  had  been  a  difference 
of  but  twenty-six  or  twenty-eight  votes  between 
the  two  parties  at  the  last  election,  yet  the  entire 

1  Mountaineer,  August  9,  1834. 


350    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

representation  belonged  to  the  test  oath  party 
and  this  party  might  again  gain  control  by  such 
a  narrow  margin. 

Great  efforts  were  made  by  the  Union  party  to 
convince  the  people  that  theirs  was  no  common 
warfare;  it  was  one  of  defense  against  "wanton 
oppression  and  implacable  tyranny,"  aimed  imme 
diately  at  the  Union  party  in  South  Carolina, 
but  having  for  its  ultimate  object  the  destruction 
of  the  national  Union.  Let  none  be  deluded 
by  the  artifices  of  the  Nullifiers;  they  would 
"sing  the  siren  song  of  peace  and  try  to  charm  and 
cheat  the  Union  party  into  the  belief  that  they 
were  as  harmless  as  doves'7;  they  would  fain 
persuade  the  Union  men  that  the  proposed  oath 
of  allegiance  required  no  pledge  inconsistent  with 
the  Union  men's  cherished  opinions;  but  all  this 
was  only  a  mask  assumed  to  influence  the  pending 
elections  and  to  be  cast  aside  as  soon  as  it  should 
have  served  the  purpose.  Their  object  and  their 
fixed  resolve  was  to  pass  the  oath  in  the  meaning 
of  the  ordinance  of  the  convention  and  thus 
render  it  in  effect  an  abjuration  of  allegiance  to  the 
Union,  "a  severance  of  the  hallowed  tie  of  Ameri 
can  citizenship."  Their  meditated  assault  upon 
the  independence  of  the  judiciary,  "the  most 


The  Test  Oath  351 

sacred  column  of  our  social  edifice,"  was  cited  as 
an  example  of  the  means  they  might  adopt  to 
accomplish  disunion.  In  consequence  of  such 
arguments  in  the  press,  meetings  were  held  and 
many  protests  were  prepared  to  send  to  the 
legislature.1 

I  [  The  Charleston  city  election  on  September  2 
proved  another  victory  for  the  Nullification  party 
by  a  safe  margin.  The  Unionists,  however,  had 
explanations  to  offer  for  their  defeat,  and  ze.aljOusiy 
endeavored  to  rally  for  the  state  election;2  /  This 
exciting  state  election,  termed  by  many  theW)st 
important  in  the  history  of  the  state  to  that  date, 
proved  to  be  another  victory  for  the  Nullifiers, 
thougli  not  by  so  large  a  majority  as  two  years 
before.  ^In  Charleston  their  majority  was  reduced 
somewhat  and  the  election  was  so  close  that  there 
was  an  average  of  only  115  votes  difference  out  of 
some  2,700  votes  cast.  It  was  so  close  that  the 
Union  men  claimed  that  the  corrupt  practices 
of  their  opponents  were  all  that  gave  them  the 

1  Mountaineer,    September    6,    November    15,    1834;     Journal, 
September,  13,  27;  Courier,  November  u;  Mercury,  November  17; 
Messenger,  September  17. 

2  Mercury,  August  28,  30,  September  3,  6,  1834;  Patriot,  August 
28,  September  i,  3,  6;    Courier,  September  3;    Messenger,  Septem 
ber  10. 


352     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

victory.1  The  returns  showed  that  there  would 
be  in  the  Senate  32  State  Rights  men  and  13 
Union  men,  and  in  the  House  93  of  the  former 
and  31  of  the  latter.2 

1  Patriot,   October    15,    1834;     Courier,   October    16;     Mercury, 
October  16.    The  State  Rights  men  declared  that  the  malpractice 
of  their  opponents  was  all  that  accounted  for  their  increase  over  the 
last  election.    A  writer  in  the  Courier,  January  i,  1835,  thus  described 
the  preceding  fall  elections:   "That  period  arrived  and  the  debasing 
struggle  of  bribery,  corruption,  and  intrigue  was  conducted  with  a 
virulence  that  surpassed  all  that  had  been  before  enacted  amongst 
us.    The  virtuous  man  forgot  the  precepts  he  had  inculcated  and 
practiced;  honorable  men  laid  aside  for  the  time  the  badge  that  they 
valued  dearer  than  life;    the  rich  man  opened  his  purse  strings  to 
feed  the  unprincipled  villains  who  were  willing  to  sell  their  birthright 
for  a  mess  of  pottage;  the  working-man  abandoned  his  daily  employ 
ment  for  the  haunts  of  vice,  with  the  view  of  obtaining  from  among 
the  filthy  horde  some  creature  whom  he  might  suborn  to  vote  for  the 
cause  he  advocated;    all,  all  were  engaged  in  the  unholy  work  of 
breaking  down  the  very  pillars  of  virtue,  upon  which  rests  the  fabric 
of  our  government." 

2  Mercury,  October  30,  1834;  Journal,  November  8.     The  popular 
vote  was  roughly  estimated  at  15,000  Union  and  20,000  State  Rights, 
by  the  Mountaineer,  November  i,  and  the  Journal,  November  8; 
at  from  17,000  to  18,000  Union  and  21,000  to  22,000  State  Rights,  by 
the  Patriot,  October  25;  and  more  closely  at  17,446  Union  and  22,901 
State  Rights,  18,242  Union  and  22,742  State  Rights,  20,601  Union 
and  23,085  State  Rights,  by  the  Patriot,  November  6,  n,and  15, 1834. 

The  returns  were  alleged  by  the  Union  men  to  show  diminished 
majorities  in  the  districts  where  the  Nullifiers  had  been  hitherto  in 
the  ascendancy,  and  increased  vote  of  the  Union  party  in  those 
districts  where  they  held  the  power  (Journal,  October  25). 

The  State  Rights  men  claimed  that  their  party  polled  a  smaller 
vote  than  two  years  previously  because  the  excitement  was  not  so 


The  Test  Oath  353 

Thus  the  Nullifiers  had  a  two-thirds  majority 
in  both  houses  and  could  adopt  their  oath  as  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution.  Their  popular 
vote,  however,  was  somewhat  short  of  a  two- 
thirds  majority  of  the  votes  cast.1  The  Union 
papers  immediately  pointed  out  this  fact  and 
urged  that  while  so  large  a  minority  was  opposed 
to  measures  which  they  believed  would  deprive 
them  of  "all  the  rights  that  a  patriot  held  sacred," 
their  oppressors  should  "take  timely  warning, 
lest  an  insulted  and  injured  people  follow  that 
course  which  none  but  slaves  would  for  a  moment 
hesitate  to  pursue."  They  asserted  that  in  spite 
of  a  provision  in  the  constitution  that  two-thirds 
of  both  branches  of  the  legislature  of  two  suc- 

great  in  their  party  since  the  compromise  of  the  tariff  question,  and 
because  the  people  were  not  likely  to  turn  out  well  when  the  majority 
in  their  district  was  known  to  be  large  and  there  was  therefore  no 
spirited  opposition  (Messenger  November  5). 

In  the  state's  delegation  to  Congress,  the  Union  men  gained  one 
more  member.  They  now  had  two  of  the  nine;  James  Rogers,  from 
the  district  composed  of  York,  Chester,  Spartanburg,  and  Union, 
and  Richard  I.  Manning,  from  the  district  composed  of  Kershaw, 
Sumter,  Lancaster,  and  Chesterfield  (Journal,  November  i). 

1  The  Mercury,  November  i,  1834,  doubted  the  assertion  that  the 
State  Rights  party  did  not  have  two-thirds,  and  declared  that  they 
very  nearly  had  that  majority;  the  census  showed  45,000  voters  and 
the  Mercury  estimated  the  Union  voters  at  15,000.  See  Maps  X 
and  XI  and  p.  107,  n.  3. 


354    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

cessive  legislatures  could  adopt  amendments,  the 
intent  was  to  have  two- thirds  of  the  voters.  The 
State  Rights  men  ridiculed  this  claim.  Suppose 
they  said,  that  the  result  of  the  late  election  had 


Popular  volt  in  October. 
to  percentages  by  dis 
Union  percentage  marled  Q. 
State  Rights  percentage  in 
plain  ngure«  (Palrwt.  Novem 
ber,  1834) 


MAP  X. — Popular  vote  for  legislature,  1834 

proved  that  two-thirds  of  the  voters  were  in  favor 
of  the  amendment,  while  more  than  one- third  of  the 
representatives  elected  were  opposed  to  it,  would 
the  Union  party  have  agreed  that  the  amendment 
should  be  made  ?  It  would  not  do  for  the  Union 
party  to  insist  that  either  the  voters  or  their 
representatives  were  to  be  regarded  just  as  might 


The  Test  Oath 


355 


happen  to  suit  their  own  purposes;  the  amend 
ment  must  be  made  as  the  constitution  directed, 
by  the  legislature,  and  not  according  to  popular 
vote.1 


i  N 


,-r    30.    1834,    Journal. 

November  8,    1834).     House 
•    November    ay,   on    the 

oath. 

X'*." 

Q  against,  a8 
(g)  divided 


TV  twenty-eight  signed 
nority  address  and  were 


at 

from  Ihc 
rept  York. 


MAP  XI. — Legislature  of  1834 

The  legislature  met  and  all  watched  eagerly. 
The  governor's  message  reviewed  the  situation  and 
recommended  the  oath.2  As  the  debates  pro 
gressed  there  was  talk  of  a  bill  denning  treason, 

1  Mountaineer,  November  8,  1834;  Mercury,  November  8. 

2  For  this  action  he  was  accordingly  attacked  and  praised  by  the 
respective  party  presses  (Courier,  November  28,  1834;  Mountaineer, 
November  29;   Mercury,  November  29). 


356    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

with  its  pains  and  penalties,  to  enforce  the  oath 
when  enacted.1  It  \seemed  certain  that  the  oath 
would  be  adopted!  ^nd  there  were  various  sug 
gestions  for  plans  of  action  by  Union  supporters. 
One  plan  proposed  a  secession  of  the  Union  mem 
bers  from  the  legislature  upon  the  passage  of  the 
oath,  and  a  convention  at  Charleston  to  denounce 
the  state  government  and  prepare  a  military 
organization  of  the  Union  party  to  prevent  any 
more  elections  to  the  state  legislature  until  the 
oath  should  be  repealed.2 

Finally,  quite  unexpectedly,  the  clouds  were 
cleared  away  and  the  struggle  was  at  an  end  with 
neither  side  positively  victorious  or  vanquished. 
With  the  bill  to  amend  the  constitution  by  adding 
to  it  the  oath  of  allegiance,  was  reported  by  the 
Committee  on  Federal  Relations  a  construction 
of  the  amendment  which  the  Union  members 
thought  would  allow  them  to  take  the  oath  and  in 
no  way  impair  the  obligations  they  felt  toward  the 
United  States.  Accordingly  the  bill  was  passed 
without  opposition,  and  the  treason  bill  and  the 

plan  for  remodeling  the  judiciary  were  dropped.3 

\ 

1  Patriot,  December  6,  1834. 

2  Mercury,  November  29,  1834. 

3  Mercury,  December  n,  1834;  Patriot,  December  n. 


The  Test  Oath  357 

The  Union  members  of  the  legislature  prepared 
an  address  to  the  people,  explaining  their  reasons 
for  accepting  the  report  of  the  Joint  Committee 
on  Federal  Relations.  With  the  bill  to  amend  the 
constitution  was  introduced  a  bill  to  define  treason, 
and  notice  was  given  of  one  to  follow  which  would 
amend  the  judiciary  system  of  the  state.  These 
measures  led  to  the  conviction  that  the  majority 
would  give  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  state 
a  construction  which  the  Union  men  believed  was 
incompatible  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  When  the  amendment  was  passed,  the 
Union  men  declared  that  they  would  enter  on  the 
journals  their  protest,  but  before  that  was  neces 
sary  the  Joint  Committee  on  Federal  Relations 
reported,  in  regard  to  the  petitions  filed  against 
the  oath,  that  "the  allegiance  required  by  the 
amendment  is  that  allegiance  which  every  citizen 
owes  to  the  state  consistently  with  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States."  This  was  adopted 
by  large  majorities  in  both  houses.1 

The  Union  men  at  once  regarded  it  as  an  offer 
of  conciliation  and  a  pledge  that  the  acts  defining 
treason  and  amending  the  judiciary  would  not  be 

1  The  vote  was  36  to  4  in  the  Senate,  and  90  to  28  in  the  House; 
see  Messenger,  December  24, 1834. 


358    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

passed.  They  therefore  withdrew  their  notice 
of  protest  and  asked  all  their  party  to  accept  the 
settlement,  since  the  interpretation  given  the 
oath  did  not  impair  their  allegiance  to  the  Con 
stitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States.  It  was, 
they  declared,  under  these  circumstances  and 
with  these  views  that  they  had  accepted  the 
accommodation  in  the  same  spirit  of  kindness  and 
with  the  same  anxious  desire  to  restore  harmony 
to  the  distracted  state  with  which  they  believed 
it  had  been  tendered.  They  did  not  ask  the 
majority  to  surrender  any  opinions  which  they 
conscientiously  but  privately  held,  nor  on  their 
part  did  they  intend  to  surrender  theirs.  They 
considered  this  effort  at  conciliation  an  under 
standing  between  the  two  great  political  parties  of 
the  state  that  the  new  oath  should  receive  that 
construction  which  was  consistent  with  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  For  themselves, 
they  accepted  it  in  the  full  confidence  that  it 
meant  no  more  than  that  they  would  be  faithful 
to  the  state  in  performing  all  her  constitutional 
requisitions  and  would  render  her  "true  alle 
giance"  to  the  full  extent  of  all  her  reserved 
rights  and  sovereign  powers,  and  that  this  was  not 
inconsistent  with  the  obligations  they  owed  and 


The  Test  Oath  359 

the  allegiance  they  bore  to  the  United  States,  to 
the  full  extent  of  all  the  powers  conferred  by  the 
federal  Constitution.  And  they  did  not  deem 
it  inconsistent  with  the  good  faith  with  which 
they  had  accepted  this  accommodation  and 
intended  to  maintain  it,  to  declare  that  while 
they  were  swearing  to  be  faithful  to  the  state, 
they  intended  "to  support  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States  made  in  pursuance 
thereof,  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land."1 

The  Nullifiers  of  course  claimed  that  the  report 
of  the  committee  though  mild  and  temperate  had 
really  conceded  nothing.  They  maintained  that 
this  report  did  not  compromise  a  single  principle  of 
those  for  which  their  party  had  contended,  but 
merely  was  not  extreme  in  the  assertion  of  them. 
The  most  influential  leaders  of  the  party  were 
willing  to  adopt  the  report  as  submitted  if  it  would 
give  the  Union  men  any  satisfaction.  Some,  how 
ever,  wanted  the  allegiance  due  to  the  state  stated 
in  stronger  terms,  and  an  amendment  was  offered 
to  the  effect  that  the  state  in  her  sovereign 
capacity  had  the  exclusive  right  to  determine  what 
obligations  the  citizens  of  South  Carolina  owed  the 
federal  government.  It  failed,  by  a  vote  of  32 

1  Messenger,  December  24,  1834;   Courier,  December  24. 


360    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

to  86,  though  the  State  Rights  party  would  have 
accepted  it  at  any  other  time;  the  majority  saw 
no  reason  to  antagonize  the  Union  men  further.1 

The  compromise  was  hailed  with  satisfaction 
throughout  the  Union.,  The  State  Rights  papers 
outside  of  South  Carolina  were  reported  to  ap 
prove,  and  the  opposition  papers  seemed  to  think 
it  a  great  victory  because  the  legislature  declared 
the  oath  to  require  only  such  allegiance  as  every 
citizen  owed  to  the  state  consistently  with  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  State 
Rights  men  considered  this  strange,  when  not 
a  word  was  changed  in  the  oath  and  it  had  always 
required  the  person  taking  it  to  support  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.2  As  a  matter  of 
interpretation  as  to  the  extent  of  this  support  in 
case  of  conflict  between  the  state  and  the  federal 
governments,  however,  the  Union  men  believed 
that  before  the  assurance  held  out  in  the  report 
the  federal  government  would  have  been  deserted 
for  the  state. 

In  South  Carolina  the  Columbia  Times,  a  State 
Rights  paper,  and  the  Greenville  Mountaineer, 

1  Hammond  Papers:  I.  W.  Hayne  to  Hammond,  December  8, 1834. 
Messenger,  December  17,  24,  1834;  Niks'  Register,  December  27. 

3  Messenger,  January  14,  1835. 


The  Test  Oath  361 

a  Union  press,  were  said  to  be  the  only  ones  of 
either  party  which  expressed  dissatisfaction.  The 
former  objected  because  the  treason  bill  was 
dropped,  and  the  latter  because  it  claimed  that 
if  a  close  examination  and  literal  interpretation 
were  made,  it  would  be  found  that  the  oath  and 
explanation  still  demanded  allegiance  to  the  state 
and  only  obedience  to  the  United  States,  which 
to  the  editor  seemed  to  be  giving  paramount 
obligation  to  the  state.  He  thought  that  the 
Union  party  had  disgracefully  yielded  all.  But 
even  this  one  Union  leader,  after  expressing  his 
views,  determined  to  speak  of  it  no  more.1 

/•*•  N 

On  the  day  after  the  compromise  was  reached 

tame  the  election  of  the  governor  of  the  state. 
George  McDuffie  received  the  unanimous  vote  of 
jthe  Union  party  as  well  as  of  his  own.  Apparently 
concord  was  restored  in  South  Carolina.  The 
Union  men  would  take  the  oath,  but  whether  the 
bitterness  of  party  feeling  was  to  be  much  allayed 
swas  questionable.  It  would  evidently  be  long 
before  it  was  entirely  extinguished.2 

The  year  1835  opened  with  nearly  every  editor 
in  the  state  doing  his  utmost  to  promote  harmony. 

1  Mountaineer,  December  13,  1834;  Messenger,  January  14,  1835. 

2  Messenger,  December  17,  1834;  Niles  Register,  December  20. 


362     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

The  watchword  of  all  seemed  to  be  to  forgive  and 
forget  the  past  differences.  It  seemed  that  the 
"demon  of  civil  war"  had  flown,  "affrighted  at 
the  approach  of  the  peaceful  dove.  The  arrows 
were  displaced  and  the  graceful  olive  branch 
occupied  their  station. "  The  warfare  of  years 
had  been  settled  in  a  day  and  the  terms  of  peace 
were  ratified  by  a  rejoicing  people.1 

Some  flurries  of  discordant  winds  appeared 
occasionally  to  fan  the  old  flame,  but  these  never 
proved  of  serious  consequence.  They  arose  when 
editors  of  either  side  felt  called  upon  to  deny 
stories  they  had  heard  or  read  of  an  impression 
being  abroad  somewhere  that  their  party  had 
made  the  greater  concessions  in  the  settlement. 
It  was  then  pointed  out  anew  that  the  settlement 
was  a  true  compromise,  resting  on  the  basis  of 
mutual  concession,  the  Union  party  conceding  the 
passage  of  the  oath,  and  the  Nullifiers  conceding 
the  freedom  of  every  man  to  interpret  it  according 
to  his  own  understanding  of  the  obligations  owed 
under  the  federal  Constitution.2 

1  Courier,  January   i,   1835;    Mercury,  January;    Mountaineer, 
January,  February,  and  March;   Journal,  January  31;    Messenger, 
February  13. 

2  Courier,  January  16,  1835;  Journal,  February  7. 


The  Test  Oath  363 

In  Greenville,  the  Union  hotbed  of  the  interior, 
there  seemed  to  be  more  dissatisfaction  with  the 
adjustment  than  elsewhere.  It  seemed  to  be  so 
formidable  there  that  the  Greenville  district  del 
egates  in  the  legislature  addressed  their  constit 
uents  on  the  recent  accommodation.  They  said 
that  they  understood  that  there  was  much  dis 
satisfaction  in  the  district  with  the  settlement  and 
with  their  having  voted  for  it.  They  requested 
the  several  beat  companies  to  take  a  vote  on  the 
course  they  had  pursued;  if  a  majority  were 
opposed,  they  would  resign  and  make  room  for 
new  representatives.  But  there  were  not  enough 
in  the  district  opposed  to  the  reconciliation  to 
cause  any  resignations;  on  the  contrary,  many 
strong  supporters  declared  that  the  Greenville 
delegates  had  acted  most  honorably  and  patrioti 
cally  by  holding  out  against  the  amendment 
only  until  they  saw  further  resistence  would  be 
folly.1 

On  the  occasion  of  the  celebration  of  July  4 
a  number  of  toasts  were  reported  from  various 
places  showing  that  a  determination  for  ultimate 
disunion  seemed  still  to  be  nursed  by  the  authors. 
These  the  Union  papers  regretted  and  pointed 

1  Messenger,  February  13,  1835. 


364    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

to  with  scorn.1  The  congressional  campaign  in 
the  districts  of  Greenville  and  Pendleton,  to  fill 
the  vacancy  caused  by  the  death  of  Warren  R. 
Davis,  displayed  some  signs  of  being  waged  on  the 
old  party  basis,  with  claims  to  office  resting  upon 
opposition  to  or  support  of  the  oath  in  the  past 
controversy.  Though  this  policy  of  openly  reviv 
ing  the  old  contest  proved  unpopular,  the  candi 
dates  were  supported  as  State  Rights  and  Union 
party  men.  These  lines  were  kept  distinct  in  the 
voting,  and  the  result  of  the  election  was  hailed 
as  a  State  Rights  victory.  Though  the  quarrel 
was  not  openly  renewed,  the  two  parties  still 
quietly  maintained  their  opinions  and  voted  for 
men  according  to  their  known  position  thereon.2 
In  August  there  was  held  a  militia  brigade 
encampment  of  officers  at  Pickensville.  Before 
it  opened  there  had  been  a  rumor  that  a  portion 
of  the  officers  of  Greenville,  dissatisfied  Union 
men,  would  not  attend.  This  proved  to  be  the 
case  and  a  majority  of  the  officers  from  that  dis 
trict  were  absent.  The  governor  in  his  address 
was  especially  complimentary  to  those  of  the 

1  Journal,  July  18,  1835. 

2  Messenger,  April  3,  17,  May  i,  September  n,  1835;  Mountain 
eer,  September  12;  Courier,  November  u. 


The  Test  Oath  365 

Union  party  who  had  turned  out  and  performed 
their  duty  in  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  state. 
He  asserted  that  their  conduct  was  evidently  to 
be  attributed  to  patriotic  motives  and  that  he 
could  never  again  regard  them  and  himself  as 
belonging  to  different  parties.  Preparations  were 
made  immediately  for  a  court-martial  to  try  all 
who  had  refused  to  attend  the  encampment.  At 
least  four^  of  these  officers  were  found  guilty  of 
"wilful  disobedience  of  orders"  and  "combi 
nation  with  other  officers  to  defy  and  resist  the 
laws  of  the  state";  they  were  sentenced  to  be 
cashiered  and  disqualified  from  holding  a  com 
mission  in  the  militia  of  South  Carolina  for  one 
year  and  to  pay  a  fine,  some  $50  and  others  $6o.x 

1  Messenger,  August  21,  November  20,  27,  1835.  One  of  these 
officers,  Major  Henry  Smith,  of  the  Third  Regiment,  wrote  a  public 
explanation:  "It  is  notoriously  known  that  all  the  field  and  most 
of  the  company  officers  of  the  Third  Regiment,  who  were  elected  on 
the  nth  of  April,  1834,  were  under  positive  instructions  from  the 
people  to  oppose  certain  provisions  of  what  is  commonly  called  the 
military  bill;  and  I  being  of  that  class  of  officers,  was  of  course 
bound  by  the  plainest  rules  of  republicanism  to  obey  their  instruc 
tions.  The  only  question,  therefore,  for  consideration,  was  whether 
I  was  or  was  not  released  from  those  obligations  by  the  late  com 
promise.  In  order  to  solve  this  question,  Colonel  McNeely,  myself, 
and  some  other  officers  concluded  to  take  the  opinion  of  as  many  of 
the  citizens  as  we  could  call  together,  which  we  did,  and  after  some 
consultation  it  was  decided  that  we  were  not  released  from  the 


366    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Thus  the  signs  of  the  late  contest  had  not 
entirely  passed.  Not  until  a  Union  man  was 
elected  governor  in  1840  was  it  admitted  with 
virtual  unanimity  that  the  old  party  lines  had 
disappeared. 

obligations  under  which  we  were  elected.  Therefore  I  could  not 
attend  the  late  encampment  without  proving  recreant  to  those  whom 
I  have  the  honor  to  command,  by  openly  violating  their  oft  expressed 
will,  as  well  as  my  own  personal  feelings." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

UNPUBLISHED  MANUSCRIPTS 

Grayson,  William  J.  Memoirs.  One  volume  in  manu 
script  form,  possessed  by  South  Carolina  College  and 
held  under  the  personal  guardianship  of  Professor 
Yates  Snowden. 

Hammond  Papers.  Personal  correspondence  and  papers 
of  James  H.  Hammond.  The  first  eight  volumes 
cover  the  period  in  hand.  Preserved  in  the  Library 
of  Congress,  Washington,  D.C. 

Jackson  Papers.  Personal  correspondence  and  papers  of 
Andrew  Jackson.  Preserved  in  the  Library  of  Con 
gress,  Washington,  D.C. 

Poinsett  Papers.  Personal  correspondence  of  Joel  R. 
Poinsett.  Volumes  IV  to  XVI  inclusive.  Held  by 
the  Pennsylvania  Library  Society,  Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania. 

Van  Buren  Papers.  Personal  correspondence  and  papers 
of  Martin  Van  Buren.  Preserved  in  the  Library  of 
Congress,  Washington,  D.C. 

NEWSPAPERS 

Camden   Journal.     Its   predecessor    was    the    Southern 

Chronicle  and  Camden  Gazette  in  1822  and  1823,  which 

became  the  Southern  Chronicle  and  Camden  Aegis  in 

1824,  and  then  the  Southern  Chronicle  and  Camden 

367 


368    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Literary  and  Political  Register  in  1825.  Vol.  i,  No.  i, 
of  the  Camden  Journal  was  issued  on  January  21, 
1826,  by  Charles  A.  Bullard.  Weekly.  It  was  taken 
over  by  G.  W.  Addison  on  April  22,  1826.  C.  F. 
Daniels,  formerly  editor  of  the  Cheraw  Spectator,  be 
came  the  editor  of  the  Journal  in  1826  and  became 
sole  owner  and  editor  on  January  8,  1831.  On 
January  5,  1833,  Pegues  and  Norment  took  charge, 
the  former  as  editor.  On  May  3,  1834,  the  name  was 
changed  to  the  Camden  Journal  and  Southern  Whig. 
On  January  3,  1835,  John  C.  West  became  the  editor 
and  publisher.  With  Vol.  X,  No.  52,  December  25, 
1835,  it  was  discontinued,  but  was  started  again  on 
January  23,  1836,  by  J.  C.  West,  as  the  Camden 
Journal.  Mr.  David  R.  Williams,  of  Camden,  South 
Carolina,  has  a  nearly  complete  file  of  these  Camden 
papers  from  1822  to  1841.  South  Carolina  College 
Library,  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  has  the  files  from 
January  12,  1833,  to  December  25, 1834.  The  paper 
was  a  weekly,  of  four  pages  and  five  columns. 

Camden  and  Lancaster  Beacon.  Moved  from  Lancaster 
to  Camden  and  new  series  was  started,  Vol.  I,  No.  i, 
Whole  No.  21,  March  15,  1831.  The  file  owned  by 
David  R.  Williams,  of  Camden,  South  Carolina,  ends 
with  Vol.  I,  No.  43,  Whole  No.  62,  December  27, 
1831.  Weekly;  edited  by  J.  D.  Cooke. 

Charleston  Carolina  Gazette.  Weekly  edition  of  the 
Charleston  City  Gazette,  published  for  country  cir 
culation.  Charleston  Library  Society,  Charleston, 
South  Carolina. 


Bibliography  369 

Charleston  City  Gazette  and  Commercial  Daily  Advertiser. 
From  Vol.  VI,  No.  1,044,  September  8,  1788,  to 
April  12,  1833.  Daily,  six  columns,  21  by  15  inches. 
Published  by  James  Haig  in  1828.  On  August  4, 
1828,  T.  L.  Smith  took  charge;  he  resigned  on 
January  5,  1829.  On  December  31,  1829,  William 
Gilmore  Simms,  Jr.,  and  E.  S.  Duryea  took 
over  the  paper.  On  April  9,  1832,  W.  G.  Simms 
appeared  as  sole  editor  and  publisher,  and  was 
succeeded  by  William  L.  Poole,  June  7,  1832. 
Charleston  Library  Society,  Charleston,  South 
Carolina. 

Charleston  Courier.  From  Vol.  I,  No.  i,  January  10, 1803, 
to  January,  1841.  Daily,  six  columns,  21  by  15 
inches.  Edited  by  A.  S.  Willington  in  1828.  On 
January  i,  1833,  Richard  Yeadon,  Jr.,  and  William  S. 
King  became  partners  of  Willington.  On  January  2, 
1837,  enlarged  to  seven  columns,  24  by  17  inches. 
Charleston  Library  Society,  Charleston,  South  Caro 
lina. 

Charleston  Mercury.  From  Vol.  II,  No.  314,  January  8, 
1823,  to  Vol.  VIII,  No.  2,069,  December  31,  1828. 
From  Vol.  IX,  No.  2,208,  July  i,  1829,  to  January, 
1841.  Daily,  six  columns,  21  by  15  inches.  Pub 
lished  by  Henry  L.  Pinckney  in  1828.  On  October  31, 
1832,  John  A.  Stuart  became  editor.  On  March  20, 
1837,  enlarged  to  seven  columns,  25  by  19  inches,  and 
J.  Milton  Clapp  became  associate  editor.  In  1845 
Clapp  became  sole  editor.  Charleston  Library 
Society,  Charleston,  South  Carolina. 


370    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Charleston  Southern  Patriot.  From  Vol.  IX,  No.  2,123, 
January  2,  1819,  to  Vol.  XXIII,  No.  ?,  June  30, 

1829.  From  Vol.  XXIII,   No.   3,359,  January   2, 

1830,  to  Vol.  XXXVIII,  No.  6,134,  June  30,  1838. 
From  Vol.  XLI,  No.  6,  281,  January  i,  1839,  to  Vol. 
XLIII,  No.  6,748,  June  30, 1840.    Daily,  six  columns, 
21 J  by   17   inches.     Published  by  J.   N.  Cardozo. 
On  October  2,  1837,  enlarged  to  24  by  17  inches. 
Charleston    Library     Society,     Charleston,    South 
Carolina. 

Charleston  State  Rights  and  Free  Trade  Evening  Post. 
From  Vol.  I,  No.  i,  October  i,  1831,  to  Vol.  II,  No. 
376,  December  31,  1832.  From  Vol.  II,  No.  531, 
July  3,  1833,  to  Vol.  Ill,  No.  683,  December  30,  1833. 
Daily,  six  columns,  22  by  15  inches.  Printed  for 
J.  A.  Stuart  by  William  Gray.  On  November  i, 
1832,  Norris  and  Gitsinger  became  proprietors.  A 
country  edition  was  issued  three  times  a  week. 
Charleston  Library  Society,  Charleston,  South  Caro 
lina. 

Columbia  Free  Press  and  Hive.  From  Vol.  I,  No.  i, 
February  5,  1831,  to  Vol.  I,  No.  52,  January  28,  1832. 
Weekly,  five  columns.  Edited  by  A.  Landrum. 
File  owned  by  Col.  E.  H.  Aull,  Newberry,  South 
Carolina. 

(Columbia)  South  Carolina  State  Gazette  and  Columbia 
Advertiser.  From  Vol.  XXXVI,  No.  2,006,  June  27, 
1829,  to  Vol.  XXXVI,  No.  2,019,  September  26, 
1829.  Weekly,  five  columns.  Published  by  D.  & 
J.  M.  Faust.  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.C. 


Bibliography  371 

Columbia  Southern  Times.  From  Vol.  I,  No.  i,  January 
29,  1830,  to  Vol.  I,  No.  45,  July  5,  1830.  Semi- 
weekly,  issued  on  Monday  and  Thursday,  five 
columns.  Edited  at  first  by  McMorris  and  Wilson; 
after  April  29  by  S.  J.  McMorris.  South  Carolina 
College  Library,  Columbia,  South  Carolina. 

Columbia  Southern  Times  and  State  Gazette.  From  Vol.  I, 
No.  46,  July  8,  1830,  to  Vol.  I,  No.  108,  December  30, 
1830.  Successor  to  the  Southern  Times.  South 
Carolina  College  Library,  Columbia,  South  Carolina. 

Columbia  Southern  Times  and  State  Gazette.  From  Vol. 
VI,  No.  27,  July  10,  1835,  to  Vol.  VIII,  No.  55, 
December  29,  1837.  Weekly,  six  columns.  Pub 
lished  by  S.  Weir  and  edited  by  S.  Donelly.  New- 
berry  College  Library,  Newberry,  South  Carolina. 

Columbia  Southern  Times  and  State  Gazette  for  1831,  Colum 
bia  Southern  Times  and  South  Carolina  State  Gazette 
for  1832,  Columbia  Telescope  for  1832.  Scattered 
copies  of  these  papers  for  the  years  indicated,  in  a 
bound  volume  of  miscellaneous  papers,  loaned  to 
South  Carolina  College  Library  by  Mr.  A.  S.  Salley, 
Jr.,  of  the  State  Historical  Commission. 

Columbia  Telescope.  From  Vol.  XV,  No.  n,  March  13, 
1829,  to  Vol.  XVII,  No.  48,  December  20,  1831. 
From  Vol.  XIX,  No.  i,  January  i,  1833,  to  Vol.  XIX, 
No.  57,  December  31,  1833.  A  few  issues  missing. 
Weekly,  six  columns.  Published  in  1829  by  D.  W. 
Sims.  On  August  9,  1831,  A.  S.  Johnston  took 
charge.  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.C. 


372     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Greenville  Mountaineer.  From  Vol.  I,  No.  2,  January  17, 
1829,  to  Vol.  XXII,  No.  36,  Whole  No.  1,076, 
January  n,  1850.  Weekly,  five  columns,  ig|  by 
13  inches.  O.  H.  Wells  editor  and  publisher  in  1829. 
B.  F.  Perry  became  editor  on  January  16,  1830.  Dis 
continued  from  January  14  to  May  14,  1831.  On 
March  30,  1833,  Perry  resigned  and  O.  H.  Wells 
conducted  the  paper  until  November  15,  1834,  when 
W.  L.  Yancey  became  editor  and  continued  as  such 
until  May  16,  1835,  when  Wells  again  took  charge. 
File  owned  by  Mr.  A.  H.  Wells,  of  Greenville,  South 
Carolina. 

Greenville  Republican.  From  Vol.  I,  No.  i,  July  12,  1826, 
to  Vol.  II,  No.  53,  August  30,  1828.  Weekly,  five 
columns.  File  owned  by  Mr.  A.  H.  Wells,  of  Green 
ville,  South  Carolina. 

Niles'  Weekly  Register.  From  Vol.  XXV,  or  Vol.  I, 
Third  Series,  September,  1823,  to  Vol.  LIX,  or  Vol. 
IX,  Fifth  Series,  March,  1841.  Changed  the  name 
to  Niles'  National  Register  in  September,  1837. 

Pendleton  Messenger.  From  1826  to  1848.  Edited  by 
Frederick  W.  Symmes.  Weekly,  five  columns. 
South  Carolina  College  Library,  Columbia,  South 
Carolina. 

Southern  Christian  Herald,  Columbia,  South  Carolina. 
From  Vol.  I,  No.  i,  March  18,  1834,  to  Vol.  Ill,  No. 
52,  March  24,  1837.  Weekly,  six  columns.  Edited 
by  R.  S.  Gladney.  Published  by  Samuel  Weir. 
Moved  to  Cheraw,  April  8,  1836,  when  M.  MacLean 


Bibliography  373 

became  editor  and  proprietor.     Newberry    College 
Library,  Newberry,  South  Carolina. 

Washington  Daily  National  Intelligencer.  From  Vol. 
XV,  No.  4,348,  January  i,  1827,  to  January,  1841. 
Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.C. 

Yorkville  Pioneer  and  South  Carolina  Whig.  Successor 
to  the  Pioneer  and  Commercial  Register.  From 
Vol.  I,  No.  i,  July  4,  1829,  to  Vol.  I,  No.  26,  January 
9,  1830.  Published  by  Cooke  and  Foulkes.  Library 
of  Congress,  Washington,  D.C. 


PAMPHLET  COLLECTIONS 

Charleston  Library  Society  Collection  of  Pamphlets. 
Five  series,  totaling  79  bound  volumes  and  several 
hundred  unbound.  All  well  indexed  and  catalogued 
as  to  titles,  subjects,  and  authors. 

Curry  (J.  L.  M.)  Collection  of  Pamphlets,  in  the  State 
Department  of  History  and  Archives,  Montgomery, 
Alabama.  113  bound  volumes  of  pamphlets  relating 
mostly  to  a  later  period,  but  with  a  few  on  this 
period. 

Kennedy  Free  Library  of  Spartanburg,  South  Carolina, 
Collection  of  Pamphlets.  6  bound  volumes  of 
pamphlets  and  a  number  of  pamphlets  unbound. 

Kohn  Collection  of  Pamphlets,  owned  by  August  Kohn 
of  Columbia,  South  Carolina.  About  50  bound 
volumes  of  miscellaneous  ante-bellum  pamphlets. 


374    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Perry  (B.  F.)  Collection  of  Pamphlets,  in  the  State  Depart 
ment  of  History  and  Archives,  Montgomery,  Ala- 

'  J  bama.  44  bound  volumes,  with  from  one  to  sixty 
pamphlets  to  the  volume.  They  contain  a  great 
variety  of  material  on  the  economic,  political,  finan 
cial,  industrial,  social,  religious,  and  educational 
phases  of  South  Carolina  and  southern  history  from 
1800  to  1860.  Several  relate  to  the  subject  in  hand. 

Phillips  Collection  of  Pamphlets,  owned  by  Professor 
U.  B.  Phillips  of  Ann  Arbor,  Michigan.  About  500 
pamphlets  on  a  wide  range  of  subjects  concerning 
the  South  in  the  ante-bellum  period,  about  25  of  which 
relate  to  this  subject. 

Snowden  Collection  of  Pamphlets,  owned  by  Professor 
Yates  Snowden  of  Columbia,  South  Carolina.  About 
200  ante-bellum  pamphlets,  bound  and  unbound,  of 
which  25  or  30  relate  to  this  subject. 

South  Carolina  College  Collection  of  Pamphlets,  Colum 
bia,  South  Carolina.  Several  hundred  ante-bellum 
pamphlets,  many  of  which  deal  with  this  subject. 
The  College  Library  has  the  S.  D.  Langtree  Collec 
tion  of  American  Pamphlets,  on  miscellaneous 
subjects  and  various  states;  92  volumes  of  1,128 
pamphlets. 

[To  give  the  complete  title,  author,  date,  and  place 
of  publication  of  all  the  pamphlets  which  relate  to  the 
subject  and  period  would  be  to  extend  the  bibliography 
to  unreasonable  length.  Those  found  especially  helpful 
have  been  referred  to  by  complete  title  in  the  footnotes.] 


Bibliography  375 

PUBLISHED  CORRESPONDENCE,  REMINIS 
CENCES,  DEBATES,  AND  RECORDS 

Adams,  J.  Q.  Memoirs.  Edited  by  C.  F.  Adams. 
Philadelphia,  1874-76. 

Ames,  H.  V.  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations;  the 
States  and  the  United  States.  Philadelphia,  1906. 

Annals  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  i8th  Cong., 
ist  Sess.,  1823-24. 

Beers'  Carolinas  and  Georgia  Almanack  for  1827. 

Calhoun,    John    C.     Works.     6    volumes.     Edited    by 
Richard  K.  Cralle.     New  York,  1859-64. 
— .     Correspondence.     Edited  by  J.  Franklin  Jame 
son.    American   Historical  Association   Report  for 
1899,  Vol.  II. 

Clay,  Henry.  Works.  Edited  by  C.  Colton.  New 
York,  1904. 

Congressional  Documents.  i8th  Cong,  to  the  24th 
Cong. 

Congressional  Globe.  Vol.  I,  23d  Cong.,  ist  Sess.,  1833- 
34;  Vol.  II,  23d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  1834-35. 

Farrand,  Max.  Records  of  the  Federal  Convention  of 
1787.  New  Haven,  1911. 

Federalist,  The.  Edited  by  H.  C.  Lodge.  New  York, 
1888. 

General  Court  of  Massachusetts.  State  Papers  on  Nulli 
fication. 

Hamilton,  Alexander.  Writings.  Edited  by  H.  C. 
Lodge.  New  York,  1885-86. 


376    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Jefferson,  Thomas.     Writings.     Edited  by  P.  L.  Ford. 

New  York,  1892-99. 
Johnston,  Alexander.    American  Orations.    New  York, 

1898. 
Legare,  Hugh  Swinton.    Writings.     Edited  by  his  sister. 

Published  in  Charleston,  1846. 
Madison,  James.    Letters  on   Nullification.    American 

Historical  Review,  Vols.  VI  and  VII. 

— .  Papers;  Correspondence  and  Reports  of  De 
bates.  Edited  by  H.  D.  Gilpin.  Washington,  1840. 

.    Writings.     Edited  by  G.  Hunt.    New  York, 

1900-1910. 

Marshall,  John.     Constitutional  Decisions.     Edited  by 
J.  P.  Cotton.    New  York,  1905. 
— .    Writings  upon  the  Federal  Constitution.    Bos 
ton,  1839. 

Miller's  Agricultural  Almanac  for  1828  for  the  States  of 
Carolina  and  Georgia.  Published  by  A.  E.  Miller, 
4  Broad  Street,  Charleston,  South  Carolina. 

Miller's  Planters'  and  Merchants'  Almanac  for  the  years 
1829  to  1831  inclusive,  1834  to  1840  inclusive. 

Perry,  Benjamin  F.  Biographical  Sketches  of  American 
Statesmen,  Speeches,  Addresses  and  Letters.  Intro 
duction  by  Senator  Wade  Hampton.  Philadelphia, 
1887. 

.    Reminiscences  and  Speeches.     1889. 

— .    Letters  to  His  Wife.    Arranged  by  H.  McC. 
Perry.    1889. 


Bibliography  377 

Phillips,  U.  B.  Correspondence  of  Robert  Toombs,  A.  H. 
Stephens,  and  Howell  Cobb.  American  Historical 
Association  Report,  1911,  Vol.  II. 

Poore,  B.  P.  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  Colonial 
Charters  and  Other  Organic  Laws  of  the  United 
States.  Washington,  1877. 

Register  of  Debates  in  Congress.  Vol.  I,  i8th  Cong., 
2d  Sess.,  1824-25,  to  Vol.  XII,  24th  Cong.,  ist. 
Sess.,  1835-36. 

Richardson,  James  D.  Messages  and  Papers  of  the 
Presidents.  Vols.  II  and  III.  Washington,  1896. 

South  Carolina  Assembly  Acts.  1827  to  1838  inclusive, 
except  for  1834. 

South  Carolina  Assembly  Journals.  1831  to  1838  inclu 
sive,  except  for  1834. 

South  Carolina  Legislature  Reports  and  Resolutions, 
1827  to  1838  inclusive,  with  the  exception  of  1834, 
bound  with  the  Acts  of  the  Legislature.  1840  bound 
with  the  Journals. 

State  Rights  and  Free  Trade  Almanac  for  1831  and  1832. 
Published  by  the  State  Rights  and  Free  Trade  Asso 
ciation.  Printed  by  A.  E.  Miller,  4  Broad  Street, 
Charleston,  South  Carolina. 

Webster,  Daniel.  Private  Correspondence.  Edited  by 
C.  H.  Van  Tyne.  New  York,  1902. 

— — .     Writings  and  Speeches.    Boston,  1903. 


378    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

SECONDARY  WORKS 

Ambler,  Charles  H.     Sectionalism  in  Virginia  from  1776 

to  1861.     Chicago,  1910. 

— .    Thomas  Ritchie.     Richmond,  1913. 
Bassett,  J.  S.    Andrew  Jackson.    New  York,  1911. 
Benton,  Thomas  Hart.    Thirty  Years'  View  (1820-1850). 

New  York,  1854-56. 
Bernheim,  G.  D.    History  of  the  German  Settlements  and 

of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  North  and  South  Carolina. 

Philadelphia,  1872. 
Burgess,  J.  W.    The  Middle  Period,  1817-1858.    New 

York,  1897. 

— .    Political  Science  and   Comparative   Constitu 
tional  Law.    Boston,  1890. 
Capers,  H.  D.    Life  and  Times  of  C.  G.  Memminger. 

Richmond,  1893. 

Carwile,  J.  B.     Reminiscences  of  Newberry.     1890. 
Chapman,  John  A.    History  of  Edgefield  County.    New- 
berry,  1897. 
Chreitzberg,    Rev.    A.    M.     Early    Methodism    in    the 

Carolinas.     1897. 
Cooley,  Thomas  M.     Constitutional  Law.     Edited  by 

A.  C.  Angell.     Boston,  1891. 
.     Constitutional  Limitations.     Edited  by  A.  C. 

Angell.    Boston,  1890. 
Curtis,  G.  T.    Daniel  Webster.     New  York,  1870. 

— .     Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States. 

New  York,  1899. 


Bibliography  379 

Dewey,  D.  R.     Financial  History  of  the  United  States. 

New  York,  1903. 
Dodd,  William  E.     Statesmen  of  the  Old  South.     New 

York,  1911. 

— .     Expansion  and  Conflict.     Boston,  1915. 
DuBose,  John  W.     Life  and  Times  of  William  Lowndes 

Yancey.     Birmingham,  1892. 
Elliott,    Hon.    William.     Carolina    Sports.     Charleston, 

1846. 
Garner,  J.  W.     Introduction  to  Political  Science.     New 

York,  1910. 
Goss,  J.   D.     History  of  Tariff  Administration  in   the 

United  States.    New  York,  1891. 
Grayson,    William    J.     Biographical    Sketch    of    James 

Louis  Petigru.     New  York,  1866. 
Griffith,  H.  P.     Life  and  Times  of  Rev.  John  G.  Landrum. 

1885. 
Harris,   C.   W.     The  Sectional  Struggle.     Philadelphia, 

1902. 

Hoist,  Hermann  Eduard  von.     John  C.  Calhoun.     Bos 
ton,  1892. 

— .     Constitutional   and    Political    History    of    the 

United  States.     Chicago,  1877-89. 
Houston,  D.   F.     A  Critical  Study  of  Nullification  in 

South  Carolina.     New  York,  1896. 
Howe,  George,  D.D.     History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 

in  South  Carolina.     Columbia,  1883. 
Hunt,  Gaillard.     John  C.  Calhoun.     Philadelphia,  1908. 


380    Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

In  Memoriam.    B.  F.  Perry.     1887. 

Jenkins,  John  Stillwell.  The  Life  of  John  C.  Calhoun. 
Buffalo,  1857. 

Jervey,  Theodore  D.  Robert  Y.  Hayne  and  His  Times. 
New  York,  1909. 

Johnston,  Alexander,  and  Woodburn,  J.  A.  American 
Political  History.  New  York,  1905. 

Kirkland,  T.  J.,  and  Kennedy,  R.  M.  Historic  Camden. 
Columbia,  1905. 

Laborde,  Maximilian.  History  of  South  Carolina  Col 
lege,  1801-1857.  Columbia,  1859. 

Lalor,  John  J.     Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science,  Political 

Economy,  and  Political  History  of  the  United  States. 

Chicago,  1883-84. 
Landrum,  Dr.  J.  B.  O.    History  of  Spartanburg  County. 

Atlanta,  1900. 

Lodge,  H.  C.    Daniel  Webster.     Boston,  1883. 
Loring,  C.  W.    Nullification,  and  Secession.    New  York, 

1893. 
McCall,  S.  W.     Daniel  Webster.     Boston,  1902. 

McCrady,  Edward.  History  of  South  Carolina  under  the 
Proprietary  Government,  1670-1719.  History  of 
South  Carolina  under  the  Royal  Government,  1719- 
1776.  History  of  South  Carolina  in  the  Revolution, 
1775-1780.  History  of  South  Carolina  in  the 
Revolution,  1780-1783.  New  York,  1897-1902. 

MacDonald,  William.  Jacksonian  Democracy.  New 
York,  1906. 


Bibliography  381 

McGill,  Samuel  D.  Narrative  of  Reminiscences  in 
Williamsburg  County.  1897. 

McLaughlin,  A.  C.  The  Courts,  the  Constitution,  and 
Parties.  Chicago,  1912. 

McMaster,  J.  B.  History  of  the  People  of  the  United 
States  from  the  Revolution  to  the  Civil  War.  New 
York,  1883-1913. 

.     Daniel  Webster.     New  York,  1902. 

Magruder,  A.  B.    John  Marshall.    Boston,  1895. 

Merriam,  C.  E.  "The  Political  Theory  of  Calhoun," 
American  Journal  of  Sociology,  Vol.  VII. 

— .    American  Political  Theories.    New  York,  1903. 

Mills,  Robert.  Atlas  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina, 
Made  under  the  Authority  of  the  Legislature.  About 
1830. 

.  Statistics  of  South  Carolina,  Including  a  View 

of  Its  Natural,  Civil,  and  Military  History.  Charles 
ton,  1826. 

Morse,  J.  T.    Thomas  Jefferson.     Boston,  1891. 

O'Neall,  J.  B.  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina. 
Charleston,  1859. 

O'Neall,  J.  B.,  and  Chapman,  J.  A.    Annals  of  Newberry. 

Newberry,  1892. 

Parton,  James.    Andrew  Jackson.    New  York,  1893. 
Peck,  C.  H.    The  Jacksonian  Epoch.    New  York,  1899. 

Pinckney,  Gustavus  M.  Life  of  John  C.  Calhoun. 
Charleston,  1903. 


382     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 

Phillips,  U.  B.     Georgia  and  State  Rights.     Washington, 
1902. 

— .     History  of  Transportation  in  the  Eastern  Cotton 
Belt  to  1860.    New  York,  1908. 

— .     "The  South   Carolina  Federalists,"  American 


Historical  Review,  Vol.  XIV. 

Ramsay,  David.  History  of  South  Carolina  from  Its 
First  Settlement  in  1670  to  the  Year  1808.  Charles 
ton,  1809. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore.  Thomas  H.  Benton.  Boston, 
1886. 

Salley,  A.  S.  Calhoun  Family  of  South  Carolina. 
Columbia,  1906. 

Schaper,  William  A.  Sectionalism  and  Representation 
in  South  Carolina,  American  Historical  Association 
Report,  1900,  Vol.  I. 

Schouler,  James.  History  of  the  United  States  under  the 
Constitution.  New  York,  1894-1914. 

— .     Constitutional    Studies,    State    and    Federal. 
New  York,  1897. 

Schurz,  Carl.     Henry  Clay.     Boston,  1892. 

Sellers,  W.  W.  History  of  Marion  County.  Columbia, 
1902. 

Simms,  William  Gilmore.  History  of  South  Carolina. 
Charleston,  1840. 

— .     Geography    of    South    Carolina.     Charleston, 

1843- 


Bibliography  383 

Southern   Historical  Association   Publications.     Articles 

in  Vols.  II  and  VII. 
Stanwood,    Edward.     A    History    of    the    Presidency. 

Boston,  1912. 

— .     American    Tariff    Controversies    in    the    igth 

Century.     Boston,  1903-4. 
Stille,   C.   J.     Life   and   Services   of  Joel   R.   Poinsett. 

Philadelphia,  1888. 

Sumner,  W.  G.     Andrew  Jackson.     Boston,  1897. 
Taussig,  F.  W.     The  Tariff  History  of  the  United  States. 

New  York,  1914. 
Thomas,  Rev.  J.  A.  W.     A  History  of  Marlboro  County. 

1897. 
Trent,    William    P.     Southern    Statesmen    of    the    Old 

Regime.     New  York,  1897. 

Turner,  F.  J.     Rise  of  the  New  West.     New  York,  1906. 
Warfield,   E.   D.     The    Kentucky  Resolutions  of   1798. 

New  York,  1887. 
Wightman,  William  M.     Life  of  William  Capers,  D.D. 

Nashville,  1858. 
Willoughby,   W.  W.     The   Nature  of  the  State.     New 

York,  1896. 

— .     Constitutional  Law  of  the  United  States.     New 

York,  1910. 

Wilson,  Woodrow.     The  State.     Boston,  1898. 
Wise,  Barton  H.    Life  of  Henry  A.  Wise.     New  York, 

1899. 


INDEX 


Abbeville  district:  anti-tariff 
meeting  in,  in  1828,  u,  n  n.; 
and  disunion,  17;  test  oath 
opposed  by,  327,  342. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  President, 
99,  117  n.;  anti-tarimtes 
censured  by  administration 
organs,  12;  opposed  by  Mer 
cury,  31 ;  supported  by  Courier 
and  Gazette,  31;  tariff  bill, 
168,  170. 

Administration,  the.  See  Adams, 
John  Quincy ;  Jackson,  Andrew. 

Agriculture:  tariff ,  effects  of ,  on, 
12  n.,  29;  improvements  of,  22. 

Aiken,  William,  157. 

Alabama,  202,  203  n.;  and  nulli 
fication,  226. 

Alien  and  Sedition  laws,  con 
stitutionality  of,  135,  305. 

Allegiance:  to  state,  178,  183, 
211,  293,  307,  316,  320-22, 
324,  346,  359,  361;  to  nation, 
178,  183,  212,  229,  316,  318, 
319,  321,  330,  350,  357-62; 
paramount,  295-30x3,  321,  340, 
340  n.,  360. 

American  Colonization  Society, 
4  n. 

American  System,  85,  113,  125, 
158,  168. 

Anderson  district,  opposition  of, 
to  test  oath,  327. 

Anti-Conventionists^  campaign 
of,  94,  95;  inclusion  of  pro- 
tariff  men  by,  95;  fears  of, 
95-97;  accused  of  tariff  lean 
ings,  in;  power  felt,  90  n.; 


anti-tariff  men  among,  96; 
in  legislature  of  1830,  103-10. 

Anti-nationalism  in  South  Caro 
lina  in  1825,  i. 

"Anti-Nullification,"  views  of, 
on  the  advocates  of  nullifi 
cation,  84. 

Anti-tariff  arguments.  See  Tariff. 

Articles  of  Confederation,  69,  70, 
73- 

Baltimore  Democratic  conven 
tion,  160,  228. 

Bank,  United  States,  303;  reso 
lutions  against,  in  1825,  i; 
legislature  of  1824  on,  35; 
constitutionality  of,  135. 

Barnwell  district:  anti-tariff 
meeting  in,  in  1828,  n  n.; 
military  preparations,  269, 
276;  mediation  by  Virginia, 
opposed  by,  274. 

Barnwell,  R.  W.,  Congressman, 
170  n. 

Bay,  Judge  E.  H.,  on  test  oath, 

333- 

Beacon,  The  Camden,  attacks  of, 
upon  Submissionists,  149. 

Beaufort,  South  Carolina,  col 
lector  of,  warned,  231. 

Bennett,  Governor,  Union  lead 
er,  134 

Blair,  James,  Congressman,  ad 
vocate  of  moderation,  60;  on 
a  convention,  no;  on  the 
tariff,  166,  169,  172;  co 
operation  favored  by,  197; 
denounced  by  Nullifiers,  310; 


385 


386     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 


elected  in  1833,  314;  removed 
from  militia  office  by  test 
oath,  323. 

Breathitt,  George,  military  spy 
for  Jackson,  230,  231. 

"Brutus."  See  Turnbull,  Rob 
ert  J. 

Butler,  A.  P.,  convention  favored 
by,  104  n. 

Butler,  S.  H.,  State  Rights 
leader,  277. 

Bynum,  Alfred,  speech  of, 
against  disunion,  16. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  171,  303,  304; 
on  danger  of  tariff  legislation, 
4,  5;  disunion  leader,  23,  174; 
author  of  the  Exposition  of 
1828,  36;  not  an  early  leader, 
85;  and  _  Jackson,  118,  151, 
152;  action  of  South  Caro 
lina,  desired  by,  119,  165; 
public  letter  of,  in  July,  1831, 
122;  authority  of,  questioned, 
128;  State  Rights  leader,  133, 
225,  270,  309;  answered,  136, 
181,  182,  312;  his  "Expose" 
of  July,  1831,  138;  public 
letter  of,  in  August,  1832,  179; 
and  secession,  233;  and  poli 
tics,  118,  260;  on  tariff  of 
1833,  263;  on  test  oath,  338. 

Cambreleng,  C.  C.,  of  New  York, 
on  Jackson's  proclamation,  242. 

"Carolina doctrines," 6 1, 65;  in, 
123.  See  also  Nullification. 

Carolinian,  The  Edgefield,  313; 
too  nationalistic,  38;  "Hamp- 
den"  articles  in,  54. 

Castle  Pinckney,  military  im 
portance  of,  234,  257.  _ 

Charleston,  South  Carolina,  98; 
Jackson  supported  by,  in  1828, 
32;  business  conditions  in,  84; 
city  elections  in,  in  1830,  98, 


99;  State  Rights  association  in, 
124;  city  elections  in,  in  1831, 
IS5>  J56;  and  the  tariff,  96,  99; 
city  election  in,  in  1832,  203; 
sectional  objection,  to  a  con 
vention,  88;  and  a  convention, 
93,  99,  210;  United  States 
army,  preparations  in,  230, 
231,  234,  284;  military  head 
quarters  of  State  Rights  men 
in,  251,  280,  284,  306;  State 
Rights  meeting  in,  of  January, 
1833,  272;  city  elections  in,  in 
l833>  3*45  and  the  test  oath, 
318,  331;  Union  center  in, 
282  n. 

Chesnut,  Colonel  James,  and 
manufacturing,  132  n. 

Chester  district:  Union  organ 
ization  in,  282  n.;  anti-tariff 
meeting  in,  in  1828,  n  n.; 
test  oath  opposed  by,  327. 

Cheves,  Langdon:  southern  co 
operation  advocated  by,  63, 64, 
92,  93,  199,  200;  on  a  state 
convention,  96. 

Cincinnati  Society  of  Charles 
ton,  147,  196. 

Clay,  Henry,  86,  99,  153,  150, 
174,  303;  and  the  tariff,  164, 
165,  197,  287,  291;  and  poli 
tics,  260,  261. 

Colleton  district:  and  disunion, 
17;  meeting  in,  of  June,  1828, 
19;  asked  to  pause,  20;  Jack 
son  opposed  by,  150.  See 
also  Walterbo  rough. 

Columbia,  South  Carolina,  97, 
100,  293;  State  Rights  meet 
ing  in,  September,  1830,  93; 
States  Rights  convention  in, 
December,  1831,  124,  125; 
and  the  proclamation,  243. 

Commerce:  effects  of  tariff  on, 
12  n.;  development  of,  84, 


Index 


191  n.;  nullification  contro 
versy,  effects  of,  on,  191. 

Congress:  and  tariff  of  1828,  6, 
9;  and  the  Constitution,  3, 
33,  135;  and  the  Supreme 
Court,  71;  and  nullification 
62,  235,  249,  258,  259,  262- 
66,  273;  hope  in,  in  1828,  37, 
and  in  1829,  40,  41,  45,  46; 
and  tariff  of  1830,  48,  49>.5°, 
53;  and  a  state  convention, 
94;  and  tariff  in  1831,  109-11, 
119,  127,  158;  hope  in,  in 
1831-32,  158,  159,  164,  213; 
and  tariff  of  1832,  165-69,  170, 
208;  and  tariff  of  1833,  210, 
240,  261-66,  271,  272,  286, 
287. 

Congressmen  of  South  Carolina: 
tariff  of  1828,  opposed  by,  6; 
on  internal  improvements,  30, 
50  n.;  governor  and  corre 
spondence  between,  45;  tariff 
reduction  favored  by,  46,  109, 
no,  166,  170;  election  of,  101, 
102  n.;  lose  hope  in  Con 
gress,  170;  answered  by  Union 
ists,  171. 

Connecticut,  and  nullification, 
176  n. 

Consolidation,  extremely  cen 
tralized  general  government. 
See  Federal  government. 

Constitution,  state:  and  nulli 
fication,  244,  247;  and  the 
test  oath,  317-19,  326,  328, 
335, 338, 339,  345, 346,  353~57- 

Constitution,  United  States:  and 
nullification,  55,  57,  58,  63,  65, 
72,  175,  179,  185,  237;  and 
a  southern  convention,  198, 
199;  broad-constructionists,  3, 
4,  7,  335  violations  of,  32,  49, 
135;  amendment  to,  sug 
gested,  58;  Unionist  view  of, 


68-80,  95,  117,  128-49,  113  n., 
179-81,  184,  211,  243,  296, 
297,  321,  340  n.,  346,  347,  350, 
357~59;  State  Rights  view  of, 
104-6,  214,  216,  346,  347; 
Jackson's  view  of,  257,  258. 
Convention,  federal,  as  part  of 
nullification  process,  73,  75, 

Convention  party.  See  State 
Rights  party. 

Convention,  southern:  advo 
cated,  197-202;  opposed,  198. 
Convention,  state:  proposed, 
88,90, 195, 158, 197,  208;  pow 
ers  of,  88,  89,  184,  325,  3355 
fears  of,  90,  91;  and  nullifica 
tion,  93,  195;  an  issue  in  1830, 
98-104, r27;  in  1832, 195,  206; 
called  in  1832,  209,  210,  212- 
18;  reassembled  in  1833,  287- 
93,  295,  312-  See  a^so  Anti- 
Conventionists;  Convention- 
ists. 

Conventionists:  program  of, 
feared,  90,  91;  campaign  of 
education  of,  91,  91  n.;  meet 
ing  of,  in  September,  1830, 
92;  not  agreed  on  program, 
93,  94;  in  legislature  of  1830, 
103-10,  and  in  1831,  158. 
SeeafcoNullifiers;  State  Rights 
party. 

Cooper,  Dr.  Thomas:  president 
of  South  Carolina  College, 
171;  nullification  leader,  83, 
107;  calculation  of  "value  of 
the  union"  recommended  by, 

3,  39- 

Co-operation,  of  whole  South, 
advocated,  7,  48,  92-94,  197- 
203,  304. 

Correspondence  committees,  ap 
pointed  in  Edgefield  in  1828, 
23- 


388     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 


Courier,  The  Charleston:  dis 
union  talk  in  1828  denounced 
by,  14,  17;  pro-tariff  articles 
in,  30;  Adams,  supported  by, 
31;  accused  of  tariff  support, 
50;  nullification  opposed  by, 
83,  146;  on  Jackson's  toast, 
87;  on  a  convention,  100; 
Calhoun's  position,  accounted 
for,  by,  181, 182. 

Courts,  state:  court  of  appeals, 
Union  majority  in,  208,  334, 
335;  and  nullification,  214, 
215,  219-24,  245;  on  the  test 
oath,  333-39,  344- 

Creswell,  Mr.,  Union  leader, 
203  n. 

Crisis,  The,  Pickens'  opinion  of, 
6 1  n.  See  also  Turnbull, 
Robert  J. 

Cunningham,  Richard:  State 
Rights  candidate,  101;  Union 
leader,  246,  295,  342,  344. 

Daniels,  C.  F.,  editor  of  Cam- 
den  Journal,  fight  of,  with 
J.  H.  Hammond,  132. 

Darlington  district:  anti-tariff 
meeting  in,  in  1828,  n  n.; 
South  Carolina  Manufactur 
ing  Company  of,  21;  test 
oath,  opposed  by,  327. 

Davis,  Warren  R.,  170  n.,  176; 
candidate  for  Congress,  90  n.; 
public  letter  of,  109;  Phila 
delphia  anti-tariff  meeting, 
promoted  by,  113;  death  of, 
364- 

Desaussure,  Chancellor,  Union 
leader,  134. 

Dew,  Professor  Thomas  R., 
memorial  of,  on  tariff,  165. 

Disunion:  hints  at,  3,  13,  14, 
25,  335  an  issue,  15;  D.  R. 
Williams  on,  18,  19;  Mer 


cury  accused  of,  23,  24,  25; 
Telescope  on,  38;  and  nullifi 
cation,  58,  59,  237,  286;  de 
nounced,  14,  16,  17,  19,  27, 
80;  a  last  resort,  55;  and  a 
convention  (see  Convention); 
less  agitation  concerning,  in 
1829,  39,  40;  fear  of,  in  1830, 
56,  100;  advocates  of,  83, 
84,  85;  renounced  by  State 
Rights  men,  99;  more  openly 
discussed,  173;  party  in  the 
North,  264.  See  also  Seces 
sion. 

Disunion  party:  Disunionists 
not  organized  in  1828,  13; 
denounced,  26;  campaign  of 
education  by,  64.  See  also 
State  Rights  party. 

Drayton,  Colonel  WTilliam:  pub 
lic  dinner  for,  62;  Union 
leader,  98,  127,  134,  231,  281, 
310;  on  internal  improve 
ments,  50  n.;  on  nullification, 
62,  96,  262;  candidate  for 
Congress,  101;  on  the  tariff, 
6,  117,  166,  169,  172;  Vir 
ginia  and  Kentucky  resolu 
tions,  interpreted  by,  139; 
Exposition  answered  by,  140; 
and  tariff  reduction  in  1833, 
262,  266. 

Dunkin,  B.  F.,  convention  fa 
vored  by,  104  n. 

Edgefield  district,  meeting  in, 
in  July,  1828,  23. 

Elections:  Charleston  city,  1830, 
98-100;  state,  1830,  100-103; 
Charleston  city,  in  1831,  155, 
156;  Charleston  city,  in  1832, 
203-5;  election  abuses,  205, 
35i,352n.;  Charleston  city,  in 
1833,314;  congressional,  1833, 
314;  state,  1834,  346-48,  352; 


Index 


389 


Charleston  city,  in  1834,351. 
See  also  Anti-Conventionists; 
Conventionists;  State  Rights 
party;  Union  party. 

England,  121  n.,  188;  supposed 
to  favor  Nullifiers,  280. 

English,  Thomas,  convention, 
favored  by,  104  n. 

Enquirer,  The  Richmond:  Colle- 
ton  asked  to  go  slower  by,  20; 
and  nullification,  225. 

"Expose"  by  Calhoun,  July, 
1831,  138.  See  also  Calhoun. 

Exposition,  the  South  Carolina, 
of  1828,  by  Calhoun,  5,  53, 
71;  answered,  42,  140;  printed 
by  legislature  in  1828,  36;  re 
stated  by  Calhoun  in  1831, 122. 

Federal  government :  prospect 
of  clash  with,  2,  6,  9,  18,  96, 
122,  166,  173,324;  Union  view 
of,  68-80;  State  Rights  view 
of,  104-6;  a  consolidated 
government,  69,  238,  267,  304, 
346-48;  military  preparations 
for  coercion  by,  215,  217,  223, 
226,  229,  233,  234,  237,  241, 
259,  270,  271.  See  also  Con 
stitution. 

Federal  party,  149;  principles  of , 


305- 
Felder, 


J.  M.,  Congressman, 
170  n.,  171. 

Florida,  Jackson  in,  152. 

Floyd,  of  Virginia,  supported  for 
President,  229. 

Force  bill:  Wilkins'  bill,  intro 
duced,  276;  opposed  in  South 
Carolina,  277,  287,  288,  304; 
nullified,  289,  292;  wisdom  of, 
doubted,  306;  defended,  312. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  128. 

Free  Press  and  Hive,  The  Colum 
bia,  nullification  opposed  by, 


131;     Calhoun   answered   by, 
138. 

Free  Trade  and  State  Rights 
associations.  See  State  Rights 
party. 

Gazette,  The  Charleston  City: 
disunion  opposed  by,  in  1828, 
15,  16,  26,  81;  Mercury, 
accused  by,  24;  Adams,  sup 
ported  by,  31;  nullification, 
opposed  by,  83,  129,  146;  on 
the  tariff,  167,  171. 

Georgetown,  South  Carolina, 
collector  of,  warned,  231. 

Georgia:  and  nullification,  120, 
130,  176  n.,  227,  262,  202, 
203  n.;  tariff,  position  of  con 
gressmen  of,  on,  166,  286. 

Germans,  on  nullification,  120  n. 

Giles,  William  B.,  anti-national 
ist,  i. 

Governor,  the,  of  South  Caro 
lina:  asked  to  call  legislature 
or  convention  in  1828,  19; 
asked  to  agree  with  congress 
men  on  plan  of  action,  45; 
message  of,  of  1831,  159;  of 
1832,  218,  219.  See  also 
Hamilton,  James,  Jr.;  Hayne, 
Robert  Y. 

Greenville,  district  and  city: 
anti-tariff  meeting  in,  in  1828, 
n  n.;  withdrawal  of  conven 
tion  advocates  in,  89;  test 
oath,  opposition  of,  to,  326-31, 
333,  363?  364;  a  strong  Union 
center,  282  n. 

Griffin,  J.  K.,  Congressman, 
170  n. 

"Hamilton,"  The  Crisis,  an 
swered  by,  14. 

Hamilton,  James,  Jr.,  Governor, 
179;  nullification  proposed  by, 


3QO     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 


33;  on  the  tariff,  52;  advo 
cate  of  nullification,  63,  173; 
party  ball  for,  123;  disunion 
leader,  23 ;  authority  of,  ques 
tioned,  128;  State  Rights 
leader,  133,^  225,  270,  272; 
legislature  in  extra  session, 
called  by,  1832,  208;  conven 
tion,  recalled  by,  287,  289;  on 
test  oath,  338. 

Hammond,  James  H.,  editor  of 
Columbia  Southern  Time.s: 
fight  of,  with  Daniels,  132; 
speech  of,  on  July  4,  1829, 
37  n.;  on  disunion,  55;  medi 
ation  by  Virginia,  opposed  by, 
274;  military  organizer,  249, 
269,  276,  277,  279. 

"Hampden"  (Francis  W.  Pick- 
ens),  articles  on  nullification 

by,  53- 

Hanlon,  James  O.,  Union  sup 
porter,  246. 

Harper,  Chancellor  William: 
speech  at  Columbia,  1828,  17; 
state  convention, advocated  by, 
93-96;  in  legislature  of  1828, 
35;  messenger  to  Congress, 
162;  memorial  of,  on  tariff, 
164;  nullification  ordinance, 
author  of,  214;  State  Rights 
leader,  311;  on  test  oath,  335, 
340. 

Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania,  tariff 
meeting  of  manufacturers  in,  5. 

Hartford  Convention,  74,  129. 

Hayne,  Robert  Y.:  debate  of, 
with  Webster,  49,  64,  65;  on 
internal  improvements,  52  n.; 
congressman,  170  n.;  pub 
lic  dinner  for,  62;  authority 
of,  questioned,  128;  State 
Rights  leader,  133,  270,  309, 
311,  302;  convention  report, 
written  by,  213;  counter- 


proclamation  of,  as  governor, 
243,  244,  248;  commander- 
in-chief  of  State  Rights  forces, 
249-54,  279;  convention,  pre 
sided  over  by,  in  March,  1833, 
289-93;  on  test  oath,  337, 

338,345-. 

Hayne,  William  E.,  assistant 
adjutant  inspector-general, 
268. 

Henry,  Professor,  on  the  Union, 
17,  18. 

Hill,  W.  R.,  a  convention,  sup 
ported  by,  104  n. 

Hive,  The  Edgefield,  boycotted 
by  Disunionists,  26. 

Holmes,  I.  E.,  123. 

Holy  Alliance,  121  n. 

"Homespun,"  manufacturing, 
recommended  by,  21. 

Horry  district:  a  Union  center, 
282;  test  oath  opposed  by,  327. 

House  of  Representatives  of 
South  Carolina  Assembly.  See 
Legislature  of  South  Carolina 
and  maps  in  the  text. 

Huger,  Alfred,  a  convention 
advocated  by  104  n. 

Huger,  Judge  Daniel  E.,  203; 
Union  leader,  134,  159,  295; 
consumption  of  northern  prod 
ucts  opposed  by,  2;  a  con 
vention  opposed  by,  104  n.; 
amendment  to  test  oath  of 
fered  by,  321. 

Hunt,  Colonel  B.  F.,  and  test 
oath,  334. 

Intelligencer,  The  Winy  aw,  against 

too  advanced  position  in  1828, 

20. 
Interior,    the.     See   Up-country 

districts. 
Internal     improvements,      164; 

resolutions  against,  in  1825,  i; 


Index 


391 


constitutionality  of,  4,  136; 
advocates  of,  30,  50;  legis 
lature  of  1824  on,  35. 

Jackson,  Andrew:  his  party 
accused  of  disunion  designs, 
13,  31;  South  Carolina  car 
ried  by,  in  1828,  32;  thought 
to  support  nullification,  65, 
86,  150;  toast  of,  to  Federal 
Union,  86,  87;  and  Calhoun, 
118,  119,  151,  152;  and  nulli 
fication,  223,  226,  228-43, 
255-60,  269,  270,  281-85,  303, 
304;  administration  of,  con 
sidered  weak  in  1830,  56;  no 
hope  in,  91;  name  of,  dropped 
by  State  Rights  party,  112; 
and  internal  improvements, 
137;  letter  of,  June  14,  1831, 
149,  160;  nullification  doc 
trine  opposed  by,  150-53, 
303,  304;  caucus  of  support 
ers  of,  159,  160;  caucus  of 
opponents  of,  159,  160;  nulli 
fication  proclamation  of,  225, 
235-43,  248,  253,  ^267,  303; 
message  of,  on  tariff  praised 
by  Nullifiers,  237,  and  de 
nounced  by  Nullifiers,  272, 
307,  310;  message  of,  of  Jan 
uary  16,  1833,  213  n.,  273; 
and  the  force  bill,  305,  306. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  117  n.,  128; 
quoted  by  Telescope,  38;  on 
nullification,  176. 

Johnson,  Judge  David,  Union 
leader,  134. 

Johnson,  Judge  Joseph,  Union 
leader,  98,  203;  on  test  oath, 
335-37,  340. 

Johnson,  Judge  William,  Union 
leader,  134. 

Journal,  The  Camden,  102,  132; 
nullification  opposed  by,  83; 


a  convention  opposed  by,  95  n. ; 

McDufifie,  answered  by,  137; 

Legare",  defended  by,  149. 
Judges,  state.    See  Courts,  state. 
Judiciary,  federal.    See  Supreme 

Court  of  United  States. 

Kendall,  Amos,  on  nullification 
and  politics,  259. 

Kentucky:  resolutions  of,  in 
1798,  33,  139,  *76,  214;  pro 
posal  of,  to  stop  purchase  of 
stock  of,  2,  3,  21 ;  and  nulli 
fication,  176  n. 

Kershaw  district  in  1828,  18. 

King,  Mr.,  Union  leader,  203  n. 

Landrum,  Dr.  A.,  editor  of  the 
Edgefield  Hive,  26. 

Laurens  district,  test  oath,  oppo 
sition  of,  to,  327. 

Lee,  Judge,  Union  leader,  134. 

Lee,  of  Massachusetts,  suported 
for  Vice-President,  229. 

Legare,  Hugh  S.:  in  legislature 
of  1828,  35;  Union  leader,  134; 
accused  of  tariff  support,  149. 

Legislature  of  South  Carolina: 
anti-nationalistic  resolutions 
of,  in  1825,  i,  and  in  1827,  4; 
Exposition  for,  written  by 
Calhoun,  5;  looked  to  for 
action  in  1828,  7,  n,  18,  27, 
34;  of  1828,  35,  37;  of  1829, 
40,  41,  44,  45;  and  a  con 
vention,  88,  89;  of  1830,  103- 
10,  127;  of  1831,  158;  extra 
session  of,  in  1832,  208,  209; 
regular  session  of,  in  1832, 
nullification  legislation  by, 
214,  215,  218-24,  243,  255, 
256;  given  power  to  act  on 
test  oath,  299,  300,  316,  317, 
325;  of  1833,  test  oath  legis 
lation  by,  317-22,  336;  of 


392     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 


1834,  test  oath  legislation  by, 

337-39,35i-6i. 
Leigh,  Benjamin  W.,  agent  of 

Virginia    to    South    Carolina, 

273,  287. 

"Leonidas"  on  the  tariff,  9. 
Lexington     district,     anti-tariff 

meeting  in,  in  1828,  n  n. 
Livingston,   Edward,   Secretary 

of  State,  242  n. 
Louisiana,  purchase  of,  135. 
Low-country    districts:     coastal 

parishes,   effect   of   tariff   on, 

149;  and  test  oath,  328. 
"Lowndes"   on   the   legislature 

of  1829,  40. 

McCrady,  Edward,  on  the  test 
oath,  334. 

McDuffie,  George:  in  Congress, 
46,  170  n.;  on  the  tariff,  116, 
170;  answered,  116,  117,  136, 
137,  172;  northern  manufac 
tures,  opposed  by,  2;  and 
broad-construction,  3;  state 
excise  on  northern  goods  urged 
by,  21 ;  disunion  leader,  23, 
173;  authority  of,  questioned, 
128;  State  Rights  leader,  133, 
311;  convention  address  writ 
ten  by,  216;  on  test  oath,  338; 
elected  governor,  361. 

McLane,  Louis,  Secretary  of 
Treasury,  tariff  bill,  166. 

McWillie,  William,  a  convention, 
opposed  by,  104  n. 

Madison,  James,  117  n.,  128; 
on  nullification,  140,  176. 

Mallory  tariff  bill,  47,  48,  no. 

Manning,  Richard  I.,  Union 
leader,  134,  295. 

Manufactures,  northern:  pro 
posal  to  stop  purchase  of,  2, 
n;  Harrisburg  meeting,  5; 
and  the  tariff,  6,  47,  52,  no. 


See  also  Non-consumption  of 
northern  products. 

Manufactures,  southern:  urged, 
21;  opposed,  131,  132. 

Massachusetts:  and  nullifica 
tion,  176  n.;  oath  of  allegi 
ance  to,  296,  297. 

Mazyck,  Alexander,  123. 

Mercury,  The  Charleston,  101, 
146,  147,  313,  327;  on  south 
ern  exhaustion  by  tariff,  12; 
on  the  presidential  campaign, 
n ;  Colleton  stand  approved 
by,  19,  20;  non-consumption 
opposed  by,  21;  "Junto"  of, 
accused  of  disunion  -  propa 
ganda,  23-26;  Jackson, 
praised  by,  31,  65;  disunion 
charges  denied  by,  32;  The 
Crisis  essays,  published  by,  4; 
on  tariff  of  1828,  6;  moderate 
position  of,  in  1828,  7;  pro- 
tariff  articles  answered  by,  29; 
on  Jackson's  toast,  87;  on  a 
convention,  100;  on  tariff  of 
1832,  170;  on  test  oath,  296, 

327,  333- 

Messenger,  ThePendleton:  open- 
minded,  82;  Calhoun's  "Ex 
pose"  printed  by,  in  July, 
1831,  138. 

Middleton,  Governor,  203  n. 

Military  preparations.  See  Fed 
eral  government;  State  Rights 
party;  Union  party. 

Militia,  state:  and  nullification, 
251,  282;  militia  law  or  "mili 
tary  bill,"  306,  307,  317,  320, 
322-24,  327-38,  344,  364. 

Miller,  Stephen  D.,  advocate  of 
moderation,  60,  i7on. 

Minute  Men.  See  State  Rights 
party  (s.v.  military  prepara 
tions  of). 

Mississippi,  202,  203  n. 


Index 


393 


Mitchell,  Thomas  R.,  Congress 
man:  on  the  tariff,  166,  169, 
172;  denounced  by  Nullifiers, 
310. 

Monroe,  James,  117  n. 

Mountaineer,  The  Greenville:  on 
Jackson's  toast,  87;  nulli 
fication  opposed  by,  133; 
legislative  action  of  1828  in 
dorsed  by,  40;  and  conven 
tion  of  1832,  209,  210;  on  test 
oath,  360,  361. 

National  Intelligencer:  Jackson's 
toast  interpreted  by,  187; 
Adams  administration  presses 
led  by,  12, 13;  and  the  Union 
ists,  348. 

National  Republicans,  260. 

"Native,  A,"  pro-tariff  argu 
ment  of,  27,  28. 

Newberry  district,  anti-tariff 
meeting  in,  in  1828,  n  n. 

New  England:  and  nullification, 
75  n.;  and  the  tariff,  117  n., 
149,  270;  and  War  of  1812, 
74;  and  secession,  270. 

New  York:  protectionist  con 
vention  in,  164;  and  nulli 
fication,  227,  241;  and  politics, 
261;  congressmen  of,  on  the 
tariff,  286. 

Niles'  Register,  read  in  South 
Carolina,  96. 

Non-consumption  of  northern 
products.  See  Non-intercourse 
with  the  North. 

Non-convention  party.  See  Anti- 
Conventionists. 

Non-intercourse  with  the  North: 
approved,  n,  19,  20,  21,  40; 
opposed,  n,  19,  22,  23. 

North,  the:  opposition  to,  2,  3, 
291;  blamed  for  disunion,  32; 
and  the  tariff,  37,  48,  no, 


113;  the  South  ridiculed  by, 
9;  and  southern  disunion 
talk,  31,  63  n.;  nullification 
indorsed  by,  65;  warned  by 
Unionists,  80,  90;  warned  by 
State  Rights  men,  217. 

North  Carolina,  and  nullification, 
120,  241,  262,  202,  203  n. 

Nuckolls,  William  T.,  Congress 
man,  170  n,  171;  on  a  con 
vention,  no. 

Nullification :  doctrine  and  prac 
tice,  not  generally  discussed 
in  1828,  20;  advocated,  33, 
61,  62,  65,  98,  121  n.,  128-49, 
164;  denounced,  60,  62,  67- 
80,  83,  97,  98,  121  n.,  127, 
128-49,  156,  172-91,  202, 
212,  ^247,  313;  brought  to 
prominence  by  J.  Hamilton, 
Jr.,  1828,  33;  in  the  Expo 
sition,  36;  suffered  from  dis 
union  stigma,  53,  57;  campaign 
of  education  for,  53,  60;  rela 
tion  of  secession  to,  56,  57,  59, 
78,  88,  223,  286;  spread  of, 
over  the  Union,  66;  and  a 
convention,  93,  94,  96;  in 
legislature  of  1830,  103-10; 
lull  in  advocacy  of,  in  1831, 
108,  109;  in  other  southern 
states,  1 20,  130,  224,  284,  285; 
new  campaign  for,  in  1831, 
121;.  in  Washington,  130; 
in  legislature  of  1831,  161, 
162;  new  campaign  for,  in 
1832,  164,  172,  195;  not  a 
peaceful  remedy,  173,  174, 
239,  273,  294;  in  operation, 
33,  34,  186,  187,  216,  219-24; 
in  election  of  1832,  206;  ordi 
nance  of,  214,  215;  and  the 
political  situation,  259;  sus 
pended,  1833,  272-76,  289; 
efficacy  of,  291,  302,  303,  313. 


394     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 


Nullification   party.    See   State 

Rights  party. 
Nullifiers.    See     State     Rights 

party. 

Ohio:  and  nullification,  176  n.; 
tariff,  position  of  congress 
men  of,  on,  286. 

"One  of  the  People,"  disunion 
opposed  by,  in  1828,  17;  on 
internal  improvements,  30. 

O'Neall,  Judge  J.  B.,  203  n.; 
Union  leader,  134;  on  test 
oath,  335, 336, 337, 340. 

Orangeburg  district,  anti-tariff 
meeting  in,  in  1828,  n  n. 

Ordinance  of  nullification.  See 
Nullification. 

Palmetto,  emblem  of  South  Car 
olina,  123,  323. 

Parishes,  defined,  10  n.  See 
also  Low-country  districts. 

Patriot,  The  Charleston  Southern: 
nullification  opposed  by,  83; 
146,  313;  on  the  tariff,  114, 
116,  117,  144.^ 

Pendleton,  district,  125  n.;  anti- 
tariff  meeting  in,  in  1828, 1 1  n. ; 
and  test  oath,  349,  364. 

Pennsylvania:  and  nullification, 
241,  176  n.;  tariff,  position  of 
congressmen  of,  on  286. 

Perry,  Benjamin  F.,  Union 
party  leader,  67. 

Petrigru,  James  L.,  Union  lead 
er,  98,  134,  159,  295,  101. 

Philadelphia  anti-tariff  conven 
tion,  September,  1831,  112, 
113,  124,  155,  162,  164. 

Pickens  district,  test  oath,  oppo 
sition  of,  to,  327. 

Pickens,  Francis  W.:  author  of 
"Hampden"  articles,  53-56; 
use  of  pamphlets  advocated 


by,  60;  convention  favored 
by,  104  n. 

Pinckney,  Henry  L.:  advocate 
of  nullification,  63,  173;  State 
Rights  candidate,  99,  315; 
convention  favored  by,  104  n. 

Player,  T.  T.,  104  n. 

Poinsett,  Joel  R.:  Union  party 
leader,  97,  127,  134,  231,  246, 
282,295;  work  of,  with  Jackson, 
229, 233, 271;  and  test  oath,  33 1. 

Post,  The  Charleston  State  Rights 
and  Free  Trade  Evening,  a 
nullification  paper,  121  n. 

President.  See  Adams,  John 
Quincy;  Jackson,  Andrew. 

Pressley,  J.  J.,  convention  op 
posed  by,  104  n. 

Preston,  John,  and  manufactur 
ing,  131,  132. 

Preston,  William  C.:  speech  of, 
at  Columbia,  1828,  17;  Cal- 
houn  asked  to  write  report  for 
legislature  by,  36;  convention 
supported  by,  104  n.;  candi 
date,  132;  State  Rights  lead 
er,  277;  on  test  oath,  338. 

Pringle,  James  R. :  Union  leader, 
98;  candidate,  99. 

Prioleau,  Judge  Samuel,  in  legis 
lature  of  1824,  34. 

Radical,  The  Cheraw,  Professor 
Henry  defended  by,  18. 

Replevin  act,  to  carry  nullifi 
cation  into  effect,  219-23. 

Republican  party  :  remnants  of, 
242;  principles  of,  305. 

Revolution,  and  nullification, 
78,  79,  i35,  140,  262. 

Revolutionary  Society  of 
Charleston,  147,  196,  345. 

Revolutionary  War:  conditions 
during,  69,  73;  pensions  from, 
165;  veterans  of,  218. 


Index 


395 


Rhett,  Robert  Barnwell:  re 
sistance  favored  by,  93;  ad 
dress  of,  on  July  4,  1832,  174. 

Rhode  Island,  74. 

Richardson,  Judge  J.  P.:  nulli 
fication  opposed  by,  93;  con 
vention  opposed  by,  104  n.; 
Union  leader,  134,  203  n. 

Richland  district,  and  disunion, 

,17'. 

Ritchie,  Thomas:  on  strict  con 
struction,  i;  on  nullification, 
225. 

Rives,  W.  C.,  of  Virginia,  sup 
porter  of  Jackson,  239. 

Rogers,  James,  Union  general 
removed  by  test  oath,  323. 

St.  James',  Goosecreek,  parish, 
anti- tariff  meeting  in,  n  n. 

St.  Philip's,  and  St.  Michael's 
parish,  100. 

"Sale  day,"  importance  of  po 
litically,  10. 

Scotch-Irish,  on  nullification, 
120  n. 

Secession:  advocated,  57;  de 
nounced,  143;  relation  of,  to 
nullification,  56,  57,  88,  223, 
304;  little  thought  of  in 
1830,  62;  Unionist  attitude 
toward,  212,  294.  See  also 
Disunion. 

Senate  of  South  Carolina. 
Assembly.  See  Legislature  of 
South  Carolina  and  maps  in 
text. 

Seventy-six  Association  of 
Charleston,  147,  196,  345. 

Seyle's  Long  Room,  Union  head 
quarters,  146. 

Slavery,  and  the  parties,  107, 
107  n. 

Smith,  Robert  Barnwell.  See 
Rhett,  Robert  Barnwell. 


Smith,  Judge  William,  Congress 
man:  anti-nationalistic  reso 
lutions  in  legislature  of  1825 
introduced  by,  i,  35;  moder 
ation  advocated  by,  60,  95  n.; 
nullification  opposed  by,  130; 
Union  leader,  134,  203  n. 

South,  the:  impoverished  by  the 
tariff  or  not,  5,  6,  7  n.,  15,  16, 
47,  49,  61,  114,  129,  135,  141, 
164,  189,  190,  192,  289,  302; 
Union  of,  advocated,  7,  48, 
92;  North,  opinion  of,  con 
cerning,  9;  union  of  policy 
urged  in,  23,  304;  and  dis 
union,  32,  217;  and  state 
sovereignty  doctrine,  43; 
weak  position  of,  81,  82,  291, 
307;  and  nullification,  120, 
130,  224,  270,  273,^286. 

South  Carolina:  ridiculed  at 
North,  9;  impoverished  by 
tariff,  12;  excises  proposed 
in,  21 ;  Jackson  supported  by, 
in  1828,  32;  changes  in  tariff 
views  of,  53;  duty  of,  in  1831, 
66,  and  in  1832,  165. 

South  Carolina  Canal  and  Rail 
way  Company,  aid  of  congress 
sought  by,  50  n. 

South  Carolina  College:  Dr. 
Thomas  Cooper,  president  of, 
3;  Professor  Henry  of,  17, 
18. 

South  Carolina  Manufacturing 
Company  of  Society  Hill, 
Darlington  district,  samples  of 
work  of,  shown,  21. 

Spartanburg  district:  test  oath 
opposed  by,  327;  Union  cen 
ter,  282  n. 

State  courts.    See  Courts,  State. 

"State  Guard."  See  State 
Rights  party  (s.v.  military 
preparations  of) . 


396     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 


"State  Rights,"  opinion  of,  on 
the  legislature  of  1829,  41. 

State  Rights  associations.  See 
State  Rights  party. 

State  Rights  doctrine.  See 
State  sovereignty. 

State  Rights  party:  Nullifi 
cation  party,  not  well  organ 
ized  in  1828,  13,  25;  original 
purpose  of,  17;  campaign  of 
education  by,  60,  64;  public 
dinner  of,  July,  1830,  62; 
leaders  of,  84,  85,  104  n.,  129, 
133,  196;  convention  in  1830 
supported  by,  90,  91;  an 
swered  by  Unionists,  67-80, 
117,  118,  172-91;  meeting 
of,  at  Columbia  in  September, 

1830,  92;  and  election  of  1830, 
99-103;  in  legislature  of  1830, 
103-10;     new    campaign    of 
education  by,  in  1831,  108-11, 
119-23;     name    of,    changed, 
112,     153;      associations     of, 
formed  in  1831,  124,  150,  154; 
convention  of,  in  December, 

1831,  125,    126;    associations 
of,  condemned  by  Unionists, 
126,  325;    convention  of  asso 
ciations  of,  in  February,  1832, 
164;   accused  of  evil  motives, 
130,  166,   167;    July  4,  cele 
bration     of,     1831,     146-48; 
disunion    charge,    denied   by, 
150;    Jackson,  denounced  by, 
I5°>   J53,  *59,  l6o>  228,  238; 
and    Charleston    election    of, 
1831,  156;   wait-awhile  policy 
of,    in     1831-32,     159,     162; 
campaign   of,    in    1832,    165, 
172,  193;  tariff  of  1832,  views 
of,    on,    166-70;    meeting    of 
associations     of,     194;      and 
election  of  1832,  203-6;   mili 
tary  preparations  of,  219,  224, 


230,  249-55,  268,  276-80,  291, 
306-9;  and  tariff  of  1833,  264; 
nullification  suspended  by, 
272-75;  convention  of,  re 
assembled,  March,  1833,  289- 
93;  on  force  bill,  305;  and 
Charleston  election  of,  1833, 
314;  congressional  election  of 
1833,  314;  test  oath  supported 
by,  316-19,  326,  334,  335,  337, 
338,  340,  346-48;  associations 
of,  revived.  337;  and  Charles 
ton  election  of ,  1834,351;  and 
state  election  of,  352;  com 
promise  of,  on  test  oath,  350- 
61. 

State  sovereignty:  state  rights 
doctrine  invoked  and  sup 
ported,  ii,  38,  39,  47,  49,  54  n., 
55,  61,  62,  66,  99,  178,  213, 
255,  292,  305,  340,  346;  de 
nounced  and  opposed,  62,  68, 
69,  199,  340;  perverted  use 
of,  17;  in  1824-28,  35;  South 
Carolina  not  a  unit  upon,  42, 

43-. 

Submission  party,  term  applied 
by  Nullifiers  to  Unionists,  86, 
I33»  T33  n-,  I6o,  201.  See 
also  Union  party. 

Sullivan's  Island,  Charleston 
harbor,  military  importance 
of,  230,  257. 

Supreme  Court  of  United  States : 
and  the  tariff,  6;  and  nulli 
fication,  62,  214,  221,  232, 
284;  and  the  Constitution,  3; 
Unionist  views  of,  71,  142, 
177. 

Tariff,  the,  of  1824,  denounced, 
2;  constitutionality  of,  denied, 
3,  4,  6,  9,  18,  20,  67,  117,  123, 
141,  213;  constitutionality  of, 
upheld,  16,  29,  117,  118,  129, 


Index 


397 


143-46;  resolutions  against, 
in  1825,  i;  Harrisburg  meet 
ing  to  promote,  5;  of  Abomi 
nations,  1828,  6;  anti-tariff 
communications  in  1828,  8,  9, 
23;  anti-tariff  meetings  of 
1828,  10,  ii,  17;  effects  of, 
upon  South  Carolina,  12,  28, 
30,  50  n.,  53,  189,  190,  192; 
pro-tariff  communications,  26- 
30;  legislature  of  1824  on, 
35,  and  of  1828  on,  35,  36; 
less  agitation  over  in  1829,  36, 
37;  legislature  of  1829  on,  44, 
45;  in  Congress,  46,  47;  of 
1830,  48;  pro-tariff  argu 
ments,  50,  113-17,  143-46; 
in  South  Carolina  in  1816,  51, 
117  n.;  and  nullification,  58; 
anti-tariff  arguments,  108, 
no,  114,  216;  effect  of,  on 
price  of  cotton,  115,  116,  145, 
149,  3i3,  3i4;  of  1832,  165- 
69;  in  Congress  of  1833,  263, 
264,  270,  286,  287,  288;  con 
vention  of  1833  on,  289,  290; 
compromise  tariff  in  South 
Carolina,  301-3,  312. 

Taylor,  Colonel,  Union  leader, 
134- 

Tazewell,  L.  W.,  Senator,  of 
Virginia,  240. 

Telescope,  The  Columbia:  posi 
tion  of,  set  forth,  37,  38; 
Walterborough  meeting  of 
June,  1828,  disapproved  of, 
by,  20. 

Tennessee,  177,  202,  203  n.;  and 
nullification,  227,  241,  270. 

Test  oath:  supported,  288,  289, 
296,  317,  3i8,  326,  332,  334- 
40,  346-48;  opposed,  246, 
247,  296-99,  316,  318,  319, 
321-31,  334,  335,  337,  340, 
344,  348,  349,  353,  356; 


provided  for  by  convention, 
289,  293;  legislature  given 
power  to  act  on,  299,  316,  317, 
325,  326;  compromise  on, 
356-66. 

Thompson,  General  Waddy, 
consumption  of  northern  prod 
ucts  opposed  by,  3. 

Times,  The  Columbia  Southern: 
and  disunion,  80;  on  test  oath, 
360. 

Tories,  Nullifiers  call  Unionists 
Tories,  238. 

Treason,  definitions  of,  178,  183, 
184,  212,  219,  237,  239,  255, 
256,  270,  283,  337,  340,  344, 
349,  355-57- 

Turnbull,  Robert  J.:  "Brutus," 
author  of  The  Crisis,  advocate 
oHiulIification,  63,  64  n.,  106, 
173;  answered,  14;  conven 
tion  address,  written  by,  215; 
death  of,  309. 

Tyler,  John,  of  Virginia,  oppo 
nent  of  Jackson,  239,  240. 

Union,  the  federal:  Dr.  Thomas 
Cooper  on,  3;  constitutional 
basis  of,  32;  purposes  of,  38; 
formation  of,  58;  love  for,  61, 
80,  96,  104,  173,  216,  290, 
291;  character  of  (see  also 
Federal  government;  Jack 
son,  Andrew;  State  Rights 
party;  Union  party). 

Union  district,  anti-tariff  meet 
ing  of,  n  n. 

Union  party:  leaders  of,  14,  67, 
97,  98,  104  n.,  134,  196;  con 
trol  of  state  by,  in  1828,  24; 
not  well  organized  in  1828, 
25;  nullification  decried  by, 
60,  67-80,  128-49,  172-91, 
244;  position  held  by,  67- 
80;  protective  tariff  opposed 


398     Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina 


by,  67,  80,  155;  state  sover 
eignty,  position  of,  on,  68,  69; 
on  federal  judiciary,  70,  71; 
on  call  of  federal  convention 
by  one  state,  73 ,  75,  77;  on 
nullification  and  war,  74,  78; 
would  support  revolution  if 
decided  upon  by  state,  79; 
convention  in  1830,  opposed 
by,  90,  96,  97;  convention, 
favored  by  part  of,  94;  or 
ganization  of,  in  1830,  97,  98; 
and  election  of  1830,  99-103; 
in  legislature  of  1830,  103-10; 
tariff,  views  of,  on,  115-18, 
144,  166,  167,  171,  266;  State 
Rights  associations  opposed 
by,  126,  154,  154  n.;  July  4, 
celebration  of,  1831,  by,  146, 
147,  148;  supported  by  Jack 
son,  150-53,  229,  234,  236, 
246,  268,  271,  283-85;  Jack 
son,  supported  by,  155,  159, 
160,  161,  228,  234,  246,  268, 
271,  281,  283-85;  and  Charles 
ton  election ,  1 83 1 , 1 5  6 ;  in  legis 
lature  of  1831,  158-63;  Wash 
ington  societies  formed  by, 
196;  co-operation  favored  by, 
197-202;  convention  of,  1832, 
201,202;  and  election  of  1832, 
203-6;  constitutionality  of 
extra  session  of  legislature 
questioned  by,  208;  and  call 
of  state  convention  in  1832, 
209-12;  threats  against,  215, 
216,  255;  and  legislature  of 
1832,  218,  219;  military  prep 
arations  of  opponents  decried 
by,  224,  281,  311;  military 
preparations  of,  248,  281,  282, 

327,  330,  34i,  342,  343,  3475 
Hayne's  counter-proclamation 
ridiculed  by,  243;  convention 
of,  in  Columbia,  December, 


1832,  246-48;  and  tariff  re 
duction  in  1833,  265,  266; 
and  consolidation,  267;  State 
Rights  suspension  of  nulli 
fication  ridiculed  by,  275,  288, 
312;  union  societies  formed, 
281;  test  oath,  opposition  of, 
to,  293,  296-302,  316.  317, 
319,  321-40,  348-50,  353, 
356;  party  convention  of, 
March,  1833,  postponed,  293, 
294;  Calhoun  answered  by, 
312;  and  Charleston  election 
of  1833,  314;  and  congres 
sional  election  of  1833,  314; 
convention  of,  in  March,  1834, 
329,  330,  333;  and  Charleston 
election  of  1834,  351;  and 
state  election  of  1834,  352; 
test  oath,  compromise  of, 


Union  and  State  Rights  Gazette, 
The  Charleston,  pro-tariff,  143, 
144,  146. 

LJp-country  districts,  distrust  of, 
88;  convention  favored  by, 
93;  convention  opposed  by, 
107;  and  test  oath,  328,  332. 

Uplands.  See  Up-country  dis 
tricts. 

Usurpations  of  the  central  gov 
ernment:  protests  against  in 
1825,  i,  2,  17,  59;  legislature 
of  1824,  on,  35;  of  1829,  44. 

Van  Buren,  Martin:  caution, 
advised  by,  258,  259;  and 
politics,  259-61. 

Vermont,  oath  of  allegiance,  296. 

Verplanck  tariff  bill.     See  Tariff. 

Virginia:  anti-nationalistic  move 
ment  in,  i;  and  tariff  of 
1828,  13;  resolutions  of,  in 
1798,  33,  139,  176,  214,  258, 
292;  and  nullification,  120, 


Index 


399 


176  n.,  225,  226,  239-42,  262, 
284;  and  the  Philadelphia 
anti-tariff  meeting,  113;  medi 
ation  offered  by,  273-75,  287, 
291,  292,  306. 

Walterborough  meeting:  of 
June,  1828,  19,  20,  25;  of 
October,  1828,  33;  of  July, 
1829,  37;  of  February,  1830, 
52  n.;  Jackson,  denounced 
by,  150;  "manifesto"  of, 
July,  1832,  174. 

Washington,  George,  117  n.,  128. 

Washington  Society,  a  Union 
organization,  196,  246. 

Webster,  Daniel,  149;  debate  of, 
with  Hayne,  49,  64,  65;  and 
politics,  260;  debate  of,  with 
Calhoun,  312;  political  creed 
of,  348. 

West,  the,  and  internal  improve 
ments,  164. 


Whig  associations,  Nullifiers' 
organizations,  345. 

Whigs,  Nullifiers  of  South  Caro 
lina  call  themselves  Whigs, 
238,  278. 

Whitner,  Benjamin  F.,  91  n. 

Wilde,  R.  H.,  of  Georgia,  on  the 
tariff,  286. 

Wilkins  bill.    See  Force  bill. 

Williams,  David  R.:  on  the 
tariff  and  disunion,  18,  19; 
and  manufacturing,  132  n. 

Williams,  Thomas,  convention, 
opposed  by,  104  n. 

Williamsburg  district,  test  oath, 
opposition  of,  to,  327. 

Wilson,  Governor  John  L.,  mes 
sage  of,  in  1824,  35. 

Wirt,  William,  159. 

York  district:  anti-tariff  meet 
ing  in,  1 1  n. ;  test  oath  opposed 
by,  327,  349- 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


REC.  CIS.    APR  1  7 


DEC  10 '67 -2  PM 


TETT69"- 


IN  STACKS 

W»Rlu 


LD21A-60m.2,'67 
(H241slO)476B 


UOAN  DKPT. 

ITT n 


NQV    4  1978 


*.  REG.  GIR.  NOV  1 L.  78 


REC.GIR.NOV  U'78 


2TM" 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


2,  4 


B  7 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


